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

[Delroy Booth]

Alright alright, I'll respond seriously.

Usury/capitalism has been universally condemned everywhere and at all times except in the modern West.

Well firstly you never said "except in the modern west" did you, that's something you're adding now to try and pull yourself out of a potentially embarassingly little hole you've dug for yourself. What you said was "everywhere... at all times... universally been regarded .... condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion" and you said it quite defintively. You did not say anything about the "modern west" until it became clear your original statement was wrong, and you had to start searching for a get-out clause.

I also think that calling the year 1638 as "modern" is dis-ingenuous. Just like claiming The Levellers were the "far-left" of the English Civil War, when that label would most accurately apply to Diggers et al not to the Levellers. It's dishonest firstly, and looks like a pretty transparent attempt at backtracking to me.

you could just accept you got it wrong of course.

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.

So if I, tonight, find some more examples of religious groups tolerating usury outside of the west you'll be prepared to accept that you're wrong too?

Calvin reluctantly began the long process of rationalizing usury at the beginning of the capitalist era. He was followed, very gradually at first, by others--Salmasius, Franklin, Mill--who went tiny steps further.

Few more points here. It's a bit early in British history to be talking of the "the Capitalst era" only limited types of very basic agrarian capitalism existed in this time period iirc, and it accounted for a very tiny part of the economy as a whole. Again, it's dis-ingenuous and dishonest of you to use words and phrases that have specific meanings in such a fast and loose way.

Secondly, what evidence can you offer to suggest that Calvin's acceptance of usury as "reluctant" because I'd be interested to know where you got that from.

I've got to go out now, but I will return to this at a later point.

 

[phildwyer]

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

The point is that he threw them out, not that they were there in the first place.

 

[frogwoman]

Usury precedes both cash and a money economy.

this is complete bollocks, i thought usury was about lending money at interest? How the fuck can there be usury without money?

 

[phildwyer]

So if I, tonight, find some more examples of religious groups tolerating usury outside of the west you'll be prepared to accept that you're wrong too?

If you find them rationalizing it I will.

 

[TruXta]

this is complete bollocks, i thought usury was about lending money at interest? How the fuck can there be usury without money?

I can lend you two hens and demand five sheep back.

 

[phildwyer]

this is complete bollocks, i thought usury was about lending money at interest? How the fuck can there be usury without money?

Think about it. What is money? What does it represent?

See?

 

[frogwoman]

The point is that he threw them out, not that they were there in the first place.

who let them into the temple then phil? not that i believe this story actually happened, but they can't have been universally hated by everyone if they were in there in the first place!

 

[Random]

Keep going frogwoman and Delroy, i think you're finally going to argue phil out of his long-entrenched views, that he gets paid to write about and all that!

 

[Idris2002]

I can lend you two hens and demand five sheep back.

What if they were very big hens? Then five sheep might be a reasonable exchange, and non-usurious.

 

[frogwoman]

money only has an exchange value, it doesn't have a use value. you can't do anything with money except spend it, you can use sheep, chickens, personal goats etc. If you lent somebody a hen in return for five sheep that wouldn't be usury, that would just be barter.

 

[phildwyer]

Well firstly you never said "except in the modern west" did you, that's something you're adding now to try and pull yourself out of a potentially embarassingly little hole you've dug for yourself. What you said was "everywhere... at all times... universally been regarded .... condemned on ethical grounds by every major religion" and you said it quite defintively. You did not say anything about the "modern west" until it became clear your original statement was wrong, and you had to start searching for a get-out clause.

I responded seriously to you, but you don't seem to return the favor.

Any fair-minded and literate person can easily see that the entire thrust of my critique is that the modern Western world is unique in both its ethical rationalization of usury and in the extent of its practice theroef.

If you can't even acknowledge that much, you're either illiterate or unfair-minded, and in any case unworthy of serious treatment or regard at any later date.

Also:

I also think that calling the year 1638 as "modern" is dis-ingenuous.

Well you're wrong. The early modern period runs until 1640. Or 1688. Or 1789. But in any case you are wrong.

 

[TruXta]

What if they were very big hens? Then five sheep might be a reasonable exchange, and non-usurious.

Yeah.... could be. Still, my point stands.

 

[Idris2002]

Yeah.... could be. Still, my point stands.

No, Frogs has already cut your point off at the legs, inna None Shall Pass Black Knight stylee.

 

[TruXta]

money only has an exchange value, it doesn't have a use value. you can't do anything with money except spend it, you can use sheep, chickens, personal goats etc. If you lent somebody a hen in return for five sheep that wouldn't be usury, that would just be barter.

OK, say I lend you three hens and say I want six hens back? And say you think that's unfair but you need those eggs badly so you say yes? I'd go along with calling that usurious.

 

[Random]

money only has an exchange value, it doesn't have a use value. you can't do anything with money except spend it, you can use sheep, chickens, personal goats etc. If you lent somebody a hen in return for five sheep that wouldn't be usury, that would just be barter.

You're forgetting that according to phil usury is a magical phenomenon, and hence its history can be bundled up into the history of other magical beliefs before the dominance of money! By all means enjoy the merry go round, but don't think it'll take you out of the fairground!

 

[frogwoman]

OK, say I lend you three hens and say I want six hens back? And say you think that's unfair but you need those eggs badly so you say yes? I'd go along with calling that usurious.

yeah, it could be. I don't think it's exactly the same though. Usury with eggs ffs

 

[TruXta]

yeah, it could be. I don't think it's exactly the same though. Usury with eggs ffs

Eggsury.

 

[frogwoman]

Swapping eggs and chickens isn't exactly what's commonly thought of as usury is it? And you can't eat money or use it to do other stuff, and if you were lent three hens and told you want six hens back that's not necessarily that difficult, you could give back the original three hens, lets say each hen lays four eggs, you could give back the original hens plus three of the hens that hatched from the eggs and you'd be fine, you'd end up with more eggs and chickens than you started off with (and probably more than the "usurer"). You can't exactly do that with money.

 

[phildwyer]

Secondly, what evidence can you offer to suggest that Calvin's acceptance of usury as "reluctant" because I'd be interested to know where you got that from.

For fuck's sake, how difficult is it to use Google? These are not matters of dispute we are having here. Calvin says:

"Yes, of course, the majority of our lending should be to the poor with no hope of return; I’m just saying that loans at interest to the rich are not completely forbidden; they are the exception to the rule, to be sure, but a permissible exception.”

And:

“What am I to say, except that usury almost always travels with two inseparable companions: tyrannical cruelty and the art of deception. This is why the Holy Spirit elsewhere advises all holy men, who praise and fear God, to abstain from usury, so much so that it is rare to find a good man who also practices usury.”

And:

“I must reiterate that when I approve of some usury, I am not extending my approval to all its forms. Furthermore, I disapprove of anyone engaging in usury as his form of occupation.”

And:

“it is quite obvious that the interest a merchant pays is a public fee."

And loads of other similar stuff. Why don't you do your own research?

Truxta's a tosspot, Ymu's a loony, Barney Pig's an anti-semite. What's your excuse?

 

[phildwyer]

Eggsury.

You stupid bastard.

 

[Idris2002]

You're forgetting that according to phil usury is a magical phenomenon, and hence its history can be bundled up into the history of other magical beliefs before the dominance of money! By all means enjoy the merry go round, but don't think it'll take you out of the fairground hall of mirrors!

We're through the looking glass people - or to put it another way, it's phil's world we just live in it.

 

[frogwoman]

so much so that it is rare to find a good man who also practices usury.

it is rare, not that it never happens.

 

[JimW]

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...

That seems to be the case though of course I think you're putting a different spin on it - in that IMO the fact they saw no reason to condemn it or even discuss it in ethical terms, i.e. did not problematise it, suggests it's seen as right or normal - they were quick to condemn all sorts of what to us seem esoteric social practices that they didn't approve of, like the wrong sort of ceremonials.
As I recall, private land ownership with some independent peasantry happened very early in China, especially in the north, hence the state loans for tool and other agricultural inputs; will try and scare up something a bit more authoritative than a Google-fest and see what is said.

 

[phildwyer]

who let them into the temple then phil? not that i believe this story actually happened, but they can't have been universally hated by everyone if they were in there in the first place!

Bastards let them in, that's who. Bastards like the bastards on this thread.

If usurers weren't universally hated, find me someone defending them. Find me someone, just one person, describing them in any terms other than those of the lowest possible contempt and revilation, anywhere in the entire world before 1650.

You can't.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

In the heat of this debate, I think it should really be remembered that "...there is and always has been only one logical or ethical reply to Jews, err... sorry, I mean 'usurers': So I owe you 10 billion dollars, do I? OK Shylock [...] think yourself lucky we don't throw you down a well... err.... sorry, I mean 'into the Tiber in a sack full of vipers' like what they used to."."

 

[frogwoman]

Bastards let them in, that's who. Bastards like the bastards on this thread.

If usurers weren't universally hated, find me someone defending them. Find me someone, just one person, describing them in any terms other than those of the lowest possible contempt and revilation, anywhere in the entire world before 1650.

You can't.

Shakespeare.

 

[phildwyer]

it is rare, not that it never happens.

Yes, but Calvin quite obviously regards usury as a vice. Thus to be regrettably tolerated in fallen man, though always forbidden and punished in excess. He thinks of usury as something like drinking or whoring.

 

[phildwyer]

Shakespeare.

Shylock, not Shakespeare.

Speaking of Shylock, this very timely passage succinctly expresses the way that usury is traditionally conceived as an inherently aggressive, hostile, anti-social act. An act of war, essentially:

Antonio: "If thou wilt lend this money, lend it not
As to thy friends- for when did friendship take
A breed for barren metal of his friend?-
But lend it rather to thine enemy,
Who if he break thou mayst with better face
Exact the penalty." (MOV 1.3.8)

I hope they're reading that in Nicosia today.

 

[frogwoman]

Shylock, not Shakespeare.

Shakespeare presents his character as a somewhat understandable figure though IIRC, not necessarily the scum of the earth.

 

[TruXta]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking#Religious_restrictions_on_interest

Has an interesting tidbit

Most early religious systems in the ancient Near East, and the secular codes arising from them, did not forbid usury. These societies regarded inanimate matter as alive, like plants, animals and people, and capable of reproducing itself. Hence if you lent 'food money', or monetary tokens of any kind, it was legitimate to charge interest.[128] Food money in the shape of olives, dates, seeds or animals was lent out as early as c. 5000 BCE, if not earlier. Among the Mesopotamians, Hittites, Phoenicians and Egyptians, interest was legal and often fixed by the state