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

[andysays]

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.

Translation: anyone who disagrees with me is either not fair-minded or illiterate or both...

Out of interest, do you persuade many people with this style of "argument"?

 

[Delroy Booth]

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.

Cheers that looks like an interesting read.

 

[Crispy]

Translation: anyone who disagrees with me is either not fair-minded or illiterate or both...

Out of interest, do you persuade many people with this style of "argument"?

search for threads started by phildwyer and witness the horrible carnage

 

[TruXta]

Interestingly in the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in AD 325 it was stipulated that clergy could lend out money at an interest rate of NO MORE THAN 1% a month, or about 12% APR. No restrictions applied to laity. It was only later that lending at interest was forbidden altogether.

And from the Catholic Encyclopedia we have

No absolute prohibition can be found in the Old Testament; at most, Exodus 22:25, and Deuteronomy 23:19-20, forbid the taking of interest by one Jew from another. In the Christian era, the New Testament is silent on the subject; the passage in St. Luke (vi, 34, 35), which some persons interpret as a condemnation of interest, is only an exhortation to general and disinterested benevolence.

A certain number of authors, among them Benedict XIV (De synodo diocesana, X., iv, n. 6), believed in the existence of a Patristic tradition which regarded the prohibitory passages of Holy Scripture as of universal application. Examination of the texts, however, leads us to the following conclusions: Until the fourth century all that can be inferred from the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers is that it is contrary to mercy and humanity to demand interest from a poor and needy man.

The vehement denunciation of the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries were called forth by the moral decadence and avarice of the time, and we cannot find in them any expression of a general doctrine on this point; nor do the Fathers of the following centuries say anything remarkable on usury; they simply protest against the exploitation of misfortune, and such transactions as, under the pretence of rendering service to the borrower, really threw him into great distress.

The question of moderate rates of interest seems scarcely to have presented itself to their minds as a matter of discussion. The texts bearing on the question are collected in Vermeersch, "Questiones morales de justitia" II, n. 359. The councils condemned in the first place clerics who lent money at interest. This is the purpose of the 44th of the Apostolic Canons; of the Council of Arles (314), and of the 17th canon the First Council of Nicæa (325). It is true that a text of the Council of Elvira (305 or 306) is quoted which, while ordering the degradation of clerics, would also have punishment inflicted on laymen, who obstinately persisted in usurious practices; but the mention of layman is of extremely doubtful authenticity. It may then be said that until the ninth century canonical decrees forbade this profit, shameful as it was considered, only to clerics.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm

Want more, phil?

 

[Random]

Well I think the thread's closed now then, and we can all move on and agree to simply link to this thread if any similar topics ever come up

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Well I think the thread's closed now then, and we can all move on and agree to simply link to this thread if any similar topics ever come up

You know, I would really love a feature whereby derails could be flagged, enabling readers to skip past the crap in long threads.

 

[DotCommunist]

there was a function in older board software where conversations could be forked. was a bit pointless though

 

[phildwyer]

why are you going on about shylock if you don't want people to connect usury to jews?

Because we must learn how anti-semites have made such connections in order to avoid making them ourselves.

 

[TruXta]

Well I think the thread's closed now then, and we can all move on and agree to simply link to this thread if any similar topics ever come up

Ahahaha! You honestly think the philishite is gonna give up that easily?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

there was a function in older board software where conversations could be forked. was a bit pointless though

Did it not work in practice then?

 

[phildwyer]

Cheers that looks like an interesting read.

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

 

[phildwyer]

Did it not work in practice then?

It was a bit like Communism really.

 

[Crispy]

Did it not work in practice then?

With unlimited forking powers, threads end up looking like bristling trees, subdividing and subdividing into smaller and smaller conversations. Makes it impossible to follow or read through in date order.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

This is the bit I found interesting, interesting because it destroys your assertation that usury is "universally at all times" condemned in all societies except for in the modern west:

page 251:

The credit system in the cities of the Empire was very developed. The prosperity of trade and industry and the growing number of landowners that lived in the cities required ever more capital to finance the creation or improvement of their enterprises. At the same time there were many ‘capitalists’ who owned a lot of money. As such, it comes as no surprise that money lending became a profitable business, not only for a banker but also for any rich person that was able to lend money. Proper banks, private and state owned, came into existence in the Empire. Beigel adds to this and mentions that the Romans had a strong banking sector with money exchange, credit and auction businesses.

Anything to add phil?

 

[Random]

Ahahaha! You honestly think the philishite is gonna give up that easily?

Why are you keeping on the discussion? It's already been closed. Any more posts on a dead topic will just lead to confusion for the people who get directed to it.

 

[TruXta]

Why are you keeping on the discussion? It's already been closed. Any more posts on a dead topic will just lead to confusion for the people who get directed to it.

Boredom I guess. I'm off to the gym now.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I've learnt more from Captain Hurrah, Butchers and you than Oxford ever taught me (politics, economics and philosophy combined ). I don't regard being taught to bullshit well as an education. It's a passport into the kinds of jobs where employers go starry-eyed about Oxbridge and little else. It was the worst decision of my life and I didn't know anyone who wasn't more interested in the fucking Oxford Union than their degree who didn't agree with me (about the quality of the undergraduate courses, that is).

The syllabus is appalling across the board. You do get access to some great minds, but it's very rare that you will get a tutor who is up to much. The best strategy with lectures is to go to the ones with known good lecturers regardless of your subject. The ones that apply to what you're studying most likely are not being run in the term you are studying it and are often the most appallingly didactic summary of their most recent book/paper which you'd be a great deal better off studying alone.

It is much better for post-graduates, but the standard is not particularly high for them. I did some marking for them where three students were clear fails. The papers got fudged so that they all passed. I was appalled. There was nothing I could do.

Can you please try not to be sensible when I'm attempting to out-dwyer dwyer?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Because we must learn how anti-semites have made such connections in order to avoid making them ourselves.

I shit in your mother's beard.

 

[Jazzz]

You are now openly saying that an openly anti-semitic article from an anti-semite in an anti-semitical magazine of a wider anti-semitical movemt is not not a problem. On the contrary, you now aggressively insist that the author of an article that argues that jews are behind everything and that then engages in mcarthyite jew-baiting (that in fact goes further than mcarthyism ever did by naming names) is someone to be listened to, to be respected and to learnt from.

And why do you say that Hemphill wrote it anyway? There is no correspondent listed? Why have you said that it is Hemphill? You've even messed that most basic of things up.

No, you are the one messing up. Or being deliberately and quite appallingly disingenious, which I wouldn't put past you.

The Hemphill article simply described a banking racket and nowhere does anyone suggest he wrote the other one, which as you note is uncredited.

 

[Jazzz]

You, of course, don't mention that the case was thrown out and nullified.

"thrown out"? The bank was the plaintiff! The case was not 'thrown out'. The judgment was nullified. That's doesn't mean that it was ruled to have been incorrect.

But the point is that the president of the bank himself took the stand and admitted that their loans came from thin air, which they do. On these threads I generally quote several impeccable sources saying that, no-one ever quotes any respectable source saying otherwise.

 

[Buckaroo]

No, you are the one messing up. Or being deliberately and quite appallingly disingenious, which I wouldn't put past you.

The Hemphill article simply described a banking racket and nowhere does anyone suggest he wrote the other one, which as you note is uncredited.

It's disingenuous. It's not 'i', it's 'u'.

 

[butchersapron]

No, you are the one messing up. Or being deliberately and quite appallingly disingenious, which I wouldn't put past you.

The Hemphill article simply described a banking racket and nowhere does anyone suggest he wrote the other one, which as you note is uncredited.

What Hemphill article?

 

[butchersapron]

"thrown out"? The bank was the plaintiff! The case was not 'thrown out'. The judgment was nullified. That's doesn't mean that it was ruled to have been incorrect.

The judgement was - as i said - nullified,

Nullified:
Verb
Make legally null and void; invalidate.
Make of no use or value; cancel out.

So yes, thrown out.

 

[Jazzz]

What Hemphill article?

I have very little desire to engage with you. If you can't follow threads properly then that's your issue.

 

[Citizen66]

It's disingenuous. It's not 'i', it's 'u'.

See! It's contagious!

 

[Jazzz]

The judgement was - as i said - nullified,

Nullified:
Verb
Make legally null and void; invalidate.
Make of no use or value; cancel out.

So yes, thrown out.

No, you said the case was thrown out and nullified. I have corrected you to say that the judgment was nullified. This is completely different to the case being thrown out (in which case, the bank, as plaintiff would have lost) it is also very different to the judgment being overruled. Legal terminology has precise meanings and the distinctions are crucial. If you don't appreciate those differences then please don't bother discussing them.

 

[butchersapron]

1. Sihhi pasted an article.
2. You replied to that post by saying
3. "The article you quoted earlier is credited to Robert H. Hemphill."

Now, if you meant a different article than the one that the post that you replied to contained it may have sensible for you to have said so - or maybe replied to the post containing the article.

And, just for the record, your Hemphill hero did also write for Father Coughlin's disgusting Social Justice anti-semitic rag - the one that contained all that red-baiting and open undisguised anti-semitisim. But, you, of course, would have no problem at all with that.

 

[butchersapron]

No, you said the case was thrown out and nullified. I have corrected you to say that the judgment was nullified. This is completely different to the case being thrown out (in which case, the bank, as plaintiff would have lost) it is also very different to the judgment being ruled incorrect.

The judgement from the case was nullified - nullified being a common way of saying thrown out. And it is still noticeable that you failed to mention this in your little cut and paste.

 

[Jazzz]

And, just for the record, your Hemphill hero did also write for Father Coughlin's disgusting Social Justice anti-semitic rag - the one that contained all that red-baiting and open undisguised anti-semitisim. But, you, of course, would have no problem at all with that.

And presumably that is precisely the article strictly about banking that Sihhi posted earlier in the thread. My posts are not difficult to follow. The problem here is that you are champing at the bit to link my posts with anti-semitism. If you stepped away from that then you might read the thread properly. Nowhere do I claim Hemphill to be a 'hero'. Please don't put words in mouth. I don't intend to engage with you further, it will just result in endlessly tiresome correcting.

 

[butchersapron]

That is one amongst a number that he wrote for them. This is what's happened here. Sihhi posted a number of articles from a well known anti-semitic magazine on a thread that has - at times - discussed anti-semitism, and you have responded by going ooh i like the look of that anti-semitic mag. A mag that reproduced the protocols of the elders of zion, a mag that you have been shown the naked anti-semitism of.




This really happened.