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

[Random]

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.

It took me about ten minutes, bored at work: one of the many letters to money lender Thomas Sutton, founder of Charterhouse school.

"Right worshipfull, I am a musitian, who formerly
have brought upp noblemens daughters, as well knights
as gentlemen's daughters, in the arte of musicke ; who
through a long continuance of sycknes (my schollers which
were my onlye staye and sole mayntenance beinge long
sithence departed into the countrye and not yet returned) ,
am for want of schollers brought into such pinchinge
penurye, as that I am not able to protect myself, much
less my wife and children. And, hearinge of the generouse
reporte of youre whorships worthinesse, and worthye
disposition towardes distressed gentlemen, to schollers
and men of arte, chose rather to set my sorrowes to sale
to so worshipfull a gent as yourself, being endued with
wisdome, mercye, and charitable commiseration, than to
break foorth my miseries to any inferior person. Thus
cravinge your worships patience for this my bold attempt,
not without blushinge cheekes, I cease. By nowe the
unworthy chief gent now lyving of the name, John
Hardinge, 1611."

http://archive.org/stream/charterhouseoflo00tayluoft/charterhouseoflo00tayluoft_djvu.txt

 

[phildwyer]

Jews

You keep your Nazi shit far away from decent people.

 

[phildwyer]

It took me about ten minutes, bored at work: one of the many letters to money lender Thomas Sutton, founder of Charterhouse school.

What's that got to do with anything?

You're not going to advance that as an ethical defence of usury?

 

[phildwyer]

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

Has an interesting tidbit

Oh God, we're going to go through the Calvin thing again.

Stop searching for "interesting tidbits" on Wikipedia and do some reading you cretin.

 

[phildwyer]

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

Shakespeare was the son of a convicted usurer.

 

[frogwoman]

 

[Random]

You're not going to advance that as an ethical defence of usury?

It's someone describing a money lender in non-revolted terms. You can admit you asked the wrong question, but I've successfully falsified your earlier claim.

 

[Random]

"I thought it was a big cushion made of chocolate mousse! It's hard! it hurts."

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

You keep your Nazi shit far away from decent people.

Pathetic.

 

[Crispy]

Eggsury.

Do it with bears. Then it can be ursury.

 

[Random]

Do it with bears. Then it can be ursury.

Lending beetles - buggury

 

[JimW]

We nearly lost Agincourt because they'd lent out all the wood for the bows, the benighted practice of Yewsury.

 

[phildwyer]

Pathetic.

I'm serious. Don't slander opposition to usury with "anti-semitism." Don't slander "the Jews" with usury. Don't do either. Both have often proved to be disastrous mistakes.

 

[phildwyer]

It's someone describing a money lender in non-revolted terms. You can admit you asked the wrong question, but I've successfully falsified your earlier claim.

FFS, the guy is begging him for a loan. He's not going to revile him there is he? (Although actually you can read the contempt he has for him clearly between the lines).

Well if you want to claim a victory with that, you're welcome to it.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I'm serious. Don't slander opposition to usury with "anti-semitism." Don't slander "the Jews" with usury. Don't do either. Both have often proved to be disastrous mistakes.

Fair enough. To avoid slandering you, I'll just assume you're a tit rather than a racist.

Btw, I never did the second of those things. What you're doing there is the equivalent of an 8 year old saying "no you smell of poo".

 

[phildwyer]

Fair enough. To avoid slandering you, I'll just assume you're a tit rather than a racist.

There we go.

If only some others around here would display a similar spirit of forgiveness and humility.

 

[Random]

FFS, the guy is begging him for a loan. He's not going to revile him there is he? (Although actually you can read the contempt he has for him clearly between the lines).

Well if you want to claim a victory with that, you're welcome to it.

It's not a victory, it's simply an easily proven fact. Money lenders could be often well-respected people, just like Thomas Sutton was. I'm sure if I had access to an academic library rather than google I could find other examples. Your claim that money lenders were universally reviled before 1650 is a bold and stimulating one, bit not one that holds water.

 

[phildwyer]

Btw, I never did the second of those things.

You never did, that's true.

But I believe that by connecting the critique of usury to anti-semitism, one is logically (though often implicitly and even unconsciously) also thereby connecting "the Jews" or at best "Judaism" with usury.

That's why one shouldn't do it.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

You never did, that's true.

But I believe that by connecting the critique of usury to anti-semitism, one is logically (though often implicitly and even unconsciously) also thereby connecting "the Jews" or at best "Judaism" with usury.

That's why one shouldn't do it.

That's some fucked-up logic there.

 

[phildwyer]

It's not a victory, it's simply an easily proven fact. Money lenders could be often well-respected people, just like Thomas Sutton was. I'm sure if I had access to an academic library rather than google I could find other examples. Your claim that money lenders were universally reviled before 1650 is a bold and stimulating one, bit not one that holds water.

You're right. Money-lending was universally reviled. Seriously, there are entire libraries denouncing it, and not one defense before the modern period.

But you're right, this does not mean that money-lenders are universally reviled. I suppose they keep it pretty quiet if they can, for one thing.

But of course, drinkers and whorers aren't universally reviled either. I don't think this is a contradiction beyond the capacities of human hypocrisy to absorb.

 

[andysays]

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

Unless their being there in the first place had been generally tolerated, he wouldn't have had the opportunity of throwing them out, would he...

 

[frogwoman]

You never did, that's true.

But I believe that by connecting the critique of usury to anti-semitism, one is logically (though often implicitly and even unconsciously) also thereby connecting "the Jews" or at best "Judaism" with usury.

That's why one shouldn't do it.

how come you were going on about "shylock" in that post about greece though? i think that's what he was going on about. I don't think you're an anti-semite btw but I'm surely somebody on well informed on the reviled practice of usury as yourself could come up with the name of another famous usurer.

 

[andysays]

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

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

 

[TruXta]

You're right. Money-lending was universally reviled. Seriously, there are entire libraries denouncing it, and not one defense before the modern period.

But you're right, this does not mean that money-lenders are universally reviled. I suppose they keep it pretty quiet if they can, for one thing.

But of course, drinkers and whorers aren't universally reviled either. I don't think this is a contradiction beyond the capacities of human hypocrisy to absorb.

Page 250 onwards talks in great detail about how money-lending at interest was widely accepted and practiced in the Roman Empire.
http://pure.au.dk/portal-asb-student/files/2448/Economy_of_Roman_Empire.pdf

We can do this all evening if you want.

 

[phildwyer]

That's some fucked-up logic there.

In the ghetto sense I presume.

 

[Random]

You're right. Money-lending was universally reviled. Seriously, there are entire libraries denouncing it, and not one defense before the modern period.

But you're right, this does not mean that money-lenders are universally reviled.

it's good we've resolved this point. We can now move on.

So if money lenders were not universally reviled, what does that tell us about the society that they inhabited? Just like the double standard relating to sex outside of marriage, isn't it likely that this prejudice against money lending was simply something that was dreamt up by an out-of-touch priesthood? One that most people often ignored, as they went about their daily life untroubled by calls denouncing "usury" and "sinful sex"?

 

[Random]

We nearly lost Agincourt because they'd lent out all the wood for the bows, the benighted practice of Yewsury.

The other day someone lent me a large river in Yorkshire and expected me to repay them with twice that volume of water. I said fuck off, that's Ouseury.

 

[Delroy Booth]

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.

Now any fair minded and literate person can read for themselves your own words on this. Let's remind ourselves of what you said about religion and usury:

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.

I notice you've changed your mind a bit since then. Would you like to go through your previous post and point out the bits you got wrong for us all? After all, much of what you're saying later on in the thread is based on the premises you've just put out. These are the foundations your arguments rest on.

You said, everywhere, at all times, universally - you specfically included the west until people started to question you, then you changed your mind and decided that it wasn't universal, everywhere, and at all times, but that it means everywhere except the West except in modern times - modern in this instance meaning "the last 4 centuries" which is a pretty generous definition of modern for this topic. Just like when you claimed industrial wage-slavery no longer existed, you tried wriggling your way out of that that with "ah but I only meant the west" once people challenged you on it. But that's ok because even in the west the era of industrial wage-slavery is still very much with us. You dropped that topic afterwards and got into some more bullshit regarding the left in Iran and Turkey, but perhaps we should revisit it?

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.

I'll acknowledge what's obvious - that you're selectively adding and revising bits of your theory after the various factual errors you've made start getting pulled to pieces. Doesn't work like that. Infact, like I pointed out earlier you actually contradict yourself with this stuff, it's like watching a 3rd rate Jazzz in action. case in point here:

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

“I must reiterate that when I approve of some usury, I am not extending my approval to all its forms."

What's that? Is that the leader of a historic religious order approving usury? Shurely shome mistake? You said no such thing existed!

I know full-well that the Calvinists disliked ususry, but they accepted it, with certain safeguards. Infact the quote you've just listed backs this up. So there you go, case closed, there's one religious group that approved of usury - Calvinists.

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

I accept that, and I never disputed it as "modern" - my criticism (which you ignored) was that it's misleading. What I'm saying is that when you come out with statements along the lines of "usury has never been tolerated by any society or religion except the modern west" it has a somewhat different impact to saying "usury has never been tolerated by any society or religion except for the last 400 years of protestantism in western europe" you see how the two statement differ? One implies that religious groups accepting usury is a recent phenomenon, within living memory, the other one demonstrates how in actual fact usury has been reconciled with religion for centuries in our part of the world. This is you hiding your bullshit behind semantics, trying to use a specific definition of the word "modern" in an unsuitable context to get away from the fact you're demonstrably wrong. For what it's worth phil I did a few "modern history" modules myself as an undergrad and we started at the fall of the roman empire, not 1640.

You did the same thing with the Levellers too btw.

It's also what I said regarding your use of the phrase "the beginning of the capitalist era" because the beginning of the capitalist era is usually bookmarked around 1780-85 by most historians, with other historians locating tendencies of capitalist development on a smaller scale going back to the late 17th century that were part of a predominantly feudal economy (Ellen Meiksens Wood is the best place to start with this if you want to learn more btw) even using this very early kind of agrarian capitalism as "the beginnings of the capitalist era" which itself is incorrect, you're still off by a fair bit.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

The other day someone lent me a large river in Yorkshire and expected me to repay them with twice that volume of water. I said fuck off, that's Ouseury.

I over-slept the other day and got some pay deducted. I said fuck off, that's snoozury.

 

[frogwoman]

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.

why are you going on about shylock if you don't want people to connect usury to jews? there's got to be other famous usurers knocking around. Like Errol Damelin