| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit--Usury | | Date: | Monday, September 25, 2006 10:46:37 (-0600) | | From: | Martin Hattersley <hattersleyjm @.........com>
|
Thanks for that analysis.
But I do think it necessary to stress that the prime problem that Douglas
analyzes has nothing to do with either usury or interrest. It is the
imbalance between purchasing power and prices caused by bank created credit
being used to finance capital development.
The usury business, from that point of view, is a "red herring" - or at
least, a different problem altogether. I think that many self styled Social
Crediters have gone off the rails thinking that creating "interest free
money" would put all economic difficulties to rights.
Martin Hattersley
5929 - 189 St.,
EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M 2J1
Phone (780)483-5442.
jmartinh@shaw.ca
e-mail: hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit--Usury
> "Was Christendom in any bondage for banning usury for
> many centuries?"
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Usury continues to be banned by Christianity with
> quite sound moral justification. It's just that
> "usury" and "interest" are not considered to be
> synonymous, nor does it appear that the words were
> considered to be synonymous by the ancient compilers
> of the Scriptures:-
> -
>
> "John Calvin's letter on usury of 1545 made it clear
> that when Christ said 'lend hoping for nothing in
> return,' He meant that we should help the poor freely.
> Following the rule of equity, we should judge people
> by their circumstances, not by legal definitions.
> Humanist that he was, Calvin knew there were two
> Hebrew words translated as 'usury.' One, neshek, meant
> 'to bite'; the other, tarbit, meant 'to take
> legitimate increase.' Based on these distinctions,
> Calvin argued that only 'biting' loans were forbidden.
> Thus, one could lend at interest to business people
> who would make a profit using the money. To the
> working poor one could lend without interest, but
> expect the loan to be repaid. To the impoverished one
> should give without expecting repayment."
> http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/jones.usury
>
> "The Quran forbids usury, not interest. Quite a few
> states in USA have laws against usury. Usury is
> defined as excessive interest. A Dictionary defines
> usury as 'an excessive or inordinate premium for the
> use of money borrowed', 'extortionate interest', or
> 'the practice of taking exorbitant or excessive
> interest.' The Arabic language also makes distinction
> between interest (Fa'eda) and usury (Reba). The Quran
> forbids Reba or usury."
> http://www.submission.org/islam/interest-usury.html
>
>
> --- Peter Haines <cymric@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I dont know where this line about usury stated but I
> agree that there is a profound theological side and it
> hasnt been examined and raely does apart from being
> only touched on in passing. It is true that Christians
> arent under the law but it is true that the Law isnt
> done away with it is to be fulfilled, that is the
> spirit of the law isnt to be thrown out like a baby
> with the bath water, ( that grace may abound) but to
> be fulfilled. I see both usury and the Muslim version
> as both being contrary to the spirit of what the Law
> was representing, under the general theme of true and
> just weights and measures/honest dealing so no one
> cheats anyone else/ do unto other etc. What about the
> clearing of debt after 7 years? What is the principle
> behind that? Since social credit claims to be
> practical Christianity anyone at any time can
> challenge anyone of us to 'prove' from the scripture
> the principles/ philosophy of social credit. There is
> nothing in the social credit library that covers this
> side and it is a field for much thrashing about in on
> its own. Was Christendom in any bondage for baning
> usury for many centuries? Salvation hasnt anything to
> do with the subject.
>
> Peter H
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wallace Klinck" <wmklinck@shaw.ca>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The Monopoly of Credit
>
> That is my understanding. Straining to prohibit
> interest or "usury" is a moralistic-legalistic,
> abstract approach which is detached from reality and
> would involve a power centralizing "top-down" approach
> wherein the state would assume the control of credit
> from an administrative and, inevitably, policy
> standpoint. What Douglas proposed was a means of
> eliminating the need for unrepayable, accumulating
> debt by making the financial accountancy system
> reflect what he described as the natural law of cost,
> i.e., the price level should be determined by the
> national mean ratio of consumption to production. The
> distribution of goods emanating from the producing
> system should be automatic and dynamic. The financial
> incomes distributed during a cycle of production,
> under orthodox financial rules always and increasingly
> inadequate to allow purchase of the entirety of goods
> produced within that cycle, must be augmented by a
> supplementary flow of non-cost-creating consumer
> credit. This would ensure the potential for complete
> distribution of the products of each production cycle
> by providing consumers with sufficient money or
> "effective demand" by which to access the full flow of
> goods emanating from the system. This is an organic
> and realistic, rather than legalistic, approach to the
> role of money in our lives --and would lead to
> balancing and normalizing influences throughout
> society. Power over economic policy and independence
> of human activity would increasingly move to
> individual citizens and would become more widely
> distributed. "The only safe place for power is in
> many hands." By eliminating the need for debt at the
> consumption level, the whole question of "usury" would
> be eliminated. There is no issue of "usury" when
> there is no need to contract debt against the future
> in order to continue living at present.
>
> Consumer credit issued according to Social Credit
> policy could not be inflationary because it would be
> issued on condition that prices be reduced at point of
> retail sale and, not being issued as debt, all
> Compensated Price and Consumer Dividend credits would
> be available to cancel all previous production costs
> while in no way adding to them or transferring them as
> a charge against the future. Because of this cost
> "pressure" being removed from the price-system
> citizens would find meeting the cost of living easier
> over time and the current escalating demand for higher
> incomes would no longer be needed or justified by
> rising financial prices as these necessarily occur
> under the present defective financial accountancy
> system. Douglas's research, we Social Credit
> advocates believe, led him to the root cause of
> economic and social problems. We need to concentrate
> on the root and stop thrashing mindlessly around in
> the branches. I think what Douglas meant, when he
> cautioned that too much striving for "justice" can
> lead one to miss it, should be fairly obvious. We
> exist in the real world and must deal with
> reality--not detached and "other-worldly" moralistic
> abstractions.
>
> I just received an e-mail wherein one of our Muslim
> friends emphasizes that debt may remain but interest,
> as an "anti-God" (i.e., "evil") institution must be
> purged from our lives. This is just another example
> of the difficulty that Martin is discussing with
> regard to ineffective approaches by usually sincere
> divers "monetary reformers" to the financial problem.
> It is a very unfortunate one because it appears to
> hold considerable psychological sway in the very
> substantial Islamic part of our world and if the
> perception could be changed in this sector of the
> population our task would be considerably assisted.
> There is a profound theological aspect to the problem
> and it relates to the concept of Salvation through
> Grace as opposed to Salvation through Works--another
> "moralistic" stumbling block which blinds society at
> large to reality and leads us from one disaster to
> another. The question appears to arise: "Can we
> survive it?"
>
> Sincerely
>
> Wally
>
> On 18-Sep-06, at 7:00 PM, Martin Hattersley wrote:
>
> Could I just make a note that these extremely
> important extracts from Douglas do emphasise that the
> reform he was looking for was not the abolition of
> usury or the nationalization of the banking system,
> but a correction of a flaw in our credit system.
>
> When capital works are financed by bank credit, a
> situation is created whereby the community first pays
> from these works through inflation, and then is
> expected to pay a second time when repayment of the
> bank financing is incorporated into prices (which is
> impossible).
>
> Money issued as a Just Price Discount would reduce
> consumer prices to a manageable level, and that, or a
> National Dividend, would not necessarily be
> inflationary, because it would very quickly go back
> to the banking system in repayment of loans, and so be
> cancelled.
>
> Martin Hattersley
> 5929 - 189 St.,
> EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M 2J1
> Phone (780)483-5442.
> jmartinh@shaw.ca
> e-mail: hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're subscribed to this list with the email hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 22/09/2006
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 22/09/2006
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message