|
Oh dear. All this talk of interest being justified.
Let's use the time-honoured principle of 'Occam's Razor' to "keep things
simple". Lending money, is a facility to the borrower. As such, like ANY
facility/help, should not be a source of profit. Help (money, or any other good
or service) that is given & benefits a recipient, should be given for FREE,
not in return for profit. Who of any moral substance, gives anything to help
another & seeks to profit from it? Only a shark.
Of course, a recipient should be grateful for what
has been received, notwithstanding Ben Frankin's sadly true observation
"Gratitude js a fruit of great cultivation. You do not find it among gross
people." Which is why the Ancient Greeks even proposed making it a
criminial offence but for whatever, unrecorded reason,
never did. The cultivation of gratitude, therefore, ought rightly, to be a
fundamental & established aim of elementay schooling. Indeed, such a system
would be far more elegant & efficient than the existing one, that charges
interest & needs administartion (involving costs) and supervision (also
involving costs) & unnecessary pressure - & therefore worry (always
unproductive) on the borrower (necessarily making the borrower, more
inefficient).
Finally, until gratitude is learned & becomes
second nature to homo sapiens - far more unlikely evenualities have taken place
- & precisely because of Frankin's true observation, it behoves ALL lenders
to "know their client/borrower". An elementary requirement, that the industry as
a whole doesn't pay much, if any attention to any longer, in the drive to
lend mre & show increased 'productivity'. We make our own beds &
complain when we don't like it.
What to DO? Get rid of interest, be careful to who
you lend & use social credit. SIMPLE! DUH! But will we? Not without
ubiquitously improved education first.
==========================
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 12:04
AM
Subject: [socialcredit] Re: Belloc on
Usury--reply to Joe
Rather the modern banker is, as Douglas wrote, "...
in a unique
position. He is probably the only known
instance of the possibility
of lending something
without parting with anything, and making a profit on
the transaction, obtaining in the first instance his
commodity
free."
---------------------------
-----------------
Essentially,
what Douglas was saying is that
financial markets don't work like
commodity markets.
The ordinary rules of supply and demand that
apply to
commodity markets do not apply to financial markets,
and he
was right--they do not. So the textbooks are
quite worthless in
describing what actually takes
place in real life.
-
He would no doubt insist that the ship be 'insured',
in his favour,
at the expense of the borrower. And
take other precautions to ensure
he doesn't lose,
regardless of what
happens.
---------------------------
-----------------
Indeed,
fractional reserve banking is a variation on
the concept of
insurance. The loss taken on
defaulted loans are priced into the
rate of interest
that everyone pays.
-
In Canada, as an example, this has often taken the
form of a
'personal guarantee' exacted from the owner
of an incorporated borrowing
business. "Limited
liability', in this case, doesn't exist for the
borrower.
---------------------------
-----------------
Do you
think that it should? I am in favor of
revisiting the whole concept
of limited liability.
The idea was that it enhances the ability to
sell
stock, which it certainly does. But is the enhanced
ability
to sell stock an essential element of the
system of free enterprise?
It seems to me it is
merely further protection for the bankers who end up
with the stock. In Europe (particularly Germany) and
most
countries (the United States has been an
exception since the 1930s)
bankers may use ordinary
commercial bank credit to purchase corporate
stock.
Thereby debt is masqueraded as equity.
-
The business could fail, and he could still be on the
hook for the
amount of the loan, plus the ever-
accumulating
interest.
---------------------------
-----------------
Personal
guarantees are particularly necessary when
the assets of the business are
insufficient to secure
the loan. If the assets were sufficient
personal
guarantees would not be necessary. How could it be
otherwise? A prudent banker would not extend a loan
to a
small-incorporated proprietorship if the assets
of the business plus the
assets of the guarantor were
insufficient to secure the loan. He
would be crazy
to do so, and quite irresponsible, wouldn't you say?
But many bankers are crazy, which is why we need
regulators.
Remember the S&L and banking crises of
the 80s and early 90s after
"deregulation," where
they got into the game of inflating credit on
spurious "collateral" they "flipped" between
themselves to increase it
"value"? An ordinary
commercial business does not need to be
regulated in
such a manner, generally its own customers will
regulate
it through the "law" of supply and demand,
which returns us to the Douglas
quote you cited
above.
-
For regardless of whether the purpose is productive
or not, or
whether the borrower makes a profit or
not, the banker is still going to
profit...Now this
is not to say that banks do not sometimes 'lose' on
their loans, and have to write them off. [I'm sure
you know you just
contradicted yourself.] But as a
small businessman whose dealt with
banks it seems to
me that they've got themselves pretty well
covered.
---------------------------
-----------------
There was a
time (at any rate in Texas there was a
time - perhaps there never was such
a time in Canada)
when local banks were small businesses. Then came
deregulation. Look, there is nothing inherently
wrong with a
system in which people reasonably expect
to profit financially. It
is true that the bankers
have gotten themselves into a position where the
banking system is relatively stable, as compared to
the early days of
the Great Depression, when
thousands of them closed. There are
photographs from
that era that show bankers jumping from skyscrapers--
such was their desperation. That particular crisis
affected the
entire economy, bankers and non-bankers
alike. There was misery for
tens of millions. And
the crisis spread to Europe and throughout the
world.
To make the entire economy relatively stable and
profitable (in the most general sense) for everyone
concerned is the
goal of the Social Credit financial
reforms.
-
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo!
Mail - You care about security. So do we.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're subscribed to this list with the email grweb012@attglobal.net
To unsubscribe, send a message to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
soial credit & 0% 
Reply to this message
