Usery, Also The Occupy Movement

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

the title is suppose to just say 'usery'', apparently one can't edit the title as one used to be able. or i'm missing something.

Edited November 13, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[MithLuin]

I think inflation kinda puts a damper on the laws against usury. Lending at interest is kinda important if the value of money is going to change over time. It's not surprising that Jewish, Christian and Muslim societies all had prohibitions against this...which they later dropped.

I realize that one can respect the spirit of the law and condemn certain lending practices that are clearly exploitative. So, it's not that there's nothing to talk about. I just think that throwing the term 'usury' out without even an attempt to define it or clarify what might be meant by it is less than helpful in a discussion of modern economic practices.

[Aloysius]

it is my personal belief that usury, or at least some monstrous mutation of it, is at the very heart of our monetary system. making money off of money itself for its own sake is the heart of why usury should be condemned. I think that the fractional banking system and the federal reserve system are that monstrous mutation of usury and that they have quietly seeped in unjust usurious action to the very foundation of what money is.

but first, to the basic definition of usury, which is interest on unproductive loans.
if interest on loans is necessary merely for inflation, then why not simply have the paid back amount adjusted for inflation?

interest on an unproductive loan is usury, IMO (and the opinion of a long Christian tradition). if a loan is productive, such as a loan to start a business, then the lender and the borrower should both enjoy profit because it was both of their money that caused profit to exist. so I would support an "interest" system that was based upon the profit that the loan produces rather than a set percentage that must be paid whether or not the venture succeeds. this is certainly more risky for lenders, if the loan does not result in a successful venture, then the lender is due back only the principal and nothing more (adjust the principal for inflation if it must be done that way, sure).

but when one simply seeks to make money off of the fact that they have money and other people need it, they are perpetuating an unjust system that is everything the Church has always been worried about when it came to usury. generally if someone wants to own their own home they have to get a mortgage, which funnels all this extra interest money to the banks. there is so much wisdom in the reasoning why the Church once so strongly and vehemently condemned usury, when money is made off of the mere fact that one has money, it widens the gap between the rich and the poor. money is not supposed to beget money.

hmm I'm not sure I've really expressed my thoughts as well as I would like to, but I have to go for now so I'm gonna leave this up and hopefully revisit it later with a better expression of what I'm trying to say, perhaps something more will be added to the convo by then...

Edited November 13, 2011 by Aloysius

[dairygirl4u2c]

sure, there's something to be said about the fact that there's inflation etc etc. but to make the convo simple, without having to be a doctoral dissertation on it all, i think it's easy enough to talk about usery in the way i did, and everyone knows what the gist of what i'm getting at is. it'd be a greater mistake to not talk about it, just because one cannot always be precise. we are only human. plus, sure, i could be more thorough, yes.

actually, al said it very well, about money making money off itself. etc.

but, i think the root of this all goes to the heart of many 'progressive' ideals as well, plus to what al always used to soap box about even more... our unjust distribution of resources and property an such.
to me, it's not so much money making money off itself that's wrong... it's when that money is being used to collective take bunches and bunches of property from everyone else, just because they can. what's wrong at the heart of that, is that the earth is here for everyone, and we shouldn't be allowing people to go homeless or property less or hungry or whatever, just because we can. even the catholic church says this, and i always throw out those big long lists of quotes that say so. that's why the CC is often considered 'progrsesive' in terms of social justice etc, even to the dismay of many conservatives etc, who almost always at least here seem to eerily ignore the quotes etc. and if you're like socrates, just point out truisms about how socialism is wrong, while ignoring as al so aptly pointed out, that it's not an either or thing, here. i maen, sure there's subsidiarity etc, but at the root of social justice, is ensuring property is distributed in a way that ensures we all have access. see geo libertarian and left libertarian for mroe info on good examples, maybe 'distributism' if itw asn't so poorly defined.
so usery and all this other social justice stuff goes hand in hand. even the CC teaches that usery is a sin. the fact that al would even qualifty it as it being 'long tradition' etc, i9s because this is a conservative board, and he has to make qualifications to respect others. in truth, others are sticking their heads in the sand as to what all this is. instead, they revert to 'conservative' ideals that say thigns like 'if you contract for it, put your money where your mouth is, no ifs ands or buts etc' that completely overlooks the exploitations that are often occurring.

Edited November 14, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]
The [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vix_Pervenit"][color="#0645ad"]papal prohibition[/color][/url] on usury meant that it was a sin to charge interest on a money loan. As set forth by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas"][color="#0645ad"]Thomas Aquinas[/color][/url], the natural essence of money was as a measure of value or intermediary in exchange. The increase of money through usury violated this essence and according to the same [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism"][color="#0645ad"]Thomistic[/color][/url] analysis, a just transaction was one characterized by an equality of exchange, one where each side received exactly his due. Interest on a loan, in excess of the principal, would violate the balance of an exchange between debtor and creditor and was therefore unjust.[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

for example, as a geolibertarian, i am against taking property to the lethal or extreme detriment of others, when you are well off. rich folk take all the property, then rent it out. they take all the money, then loan it to students. they take all the money, and give usurious loans. what if the common joe had a better leg up, with property? not only would the economy thrive more, it'd be a mroe just society. think of all the stuff you could buy, and business that that'd help, and the chain effect, if you didn't have to spend so much on rent, student loans, etc etc. anyways, what's so different if you charge rent, rather than interest? it's almsot like interest. sure, there's something to be said about getting yoru money back, and maybe then some, in some just sense, but not to the extent that it's exploitative. that's the essence of what's wwrong with not just usury... but our society.
this is all getting to the fundamental transformation of society... less about taxing or punishing productive labor, and mroe about sales taxes, or property taxes, or regulations etc, to ensure a fairer distribtuion. and sure, to some extent, it's about a fairer health care system, or pershaps welfare to a small extent, or food stamps, or wahtever. or a progressive tax system, at elast to the extent that the money is needed to justly help out the poor. etc

Edited November 14, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[God the Father]

Without a time value on money (ideally an interest rate set by the market), capital appreciation is severely curtailed.

This phenomenon, in tandem with the "Protestant Ethic" is a reason the Dutch economy came to be the most prosperous in Europe in the 17th century.

[MithLuin]

Dairygirl, thank you for your further explanation. To say that 'everyone knows what you mean' is to assume a *lot* of things about your audience. That's why I asked for an explanation. I admire Chesterton a lot, and think that there are some important ideas in distributism that we tend to forget about if people don't remind us. Namely, the 'American' ideal that if you work hard, you earned everything you have, and it's yours to do with as you please.

As Catholics, we believe that everything we have is a gift from God. So, sure, we work hard to support our families. But EVERYTHING is from God, so how we use our resources should reflect that. Nothing is really ours to do with as we wish. That doesn't mean we can't have nice things, but it does mean we can't forget our obligations to others. We're not supposed to give alms from our excess, just from what's 'left over' -we're supposed to put that in the budget up front, more or less.

As for 'what are you doing about this?' I can say that I don't borrow money and I don't cash gov't checks. I'm not sure that's very helpful on any particular front, but it is what it is.