Thanks Myro, for your first point. I have been trying to get it over
also.
However, if you take the Douglas analysis as a scientific model and test it
scientifically against fact, it soon becomes obvious that it is by far the best
explanantion for perceived economic facts and problems. For example the ledar
lack of worldwide prosoerith last century except in times of war, preparation for
it or recovery from it.
The answer seems clear. Banks also reinvest and pass repayments to reserves.
There is a deficiency in purchasing power unless very active new borrowing
continues. There is a tendency towards a "gap", but it is by no means as big as
many social Crediters project.
Regards.
John R.
> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:13:04 -0800
> From:
new_economics@yahoo.com
> To:
socialcredit@elistas.com> Subject: [socialcredit] Regarding "interest" and "usury"
>
> Unfortunately, Peter, there are some whoppers from
> both Shakespeare and Yaseen in the first half of the
> program that will turn off educated and open minded
> people to the proposed solutions.
>
> For example, Shakespeare's assertion that "one of the
> problems of creating out of nothing is that it creates
> enough money for the principal of the loan but not
> enough for the interest."
>
> And Yaseen's assertion that "the Quran condemns
> categorically usury, or interest."
>
> First, to address Shakespeare's assertion:
>
> We say that banks create money because they credit
> deposit accounts when they create loans. The ability
> and propensity to transfer deposit balances from
> person to person in transactions is what makes deposit
> accounts effectively money in today's economy. So,
> when loans are granted, money is being created. And,
> when loans are repaid, together with interest, money
> is being canceled.
>
> But there is a reciprocal monetary flow from the banks
> when they make payments for ordinary business
> expenses, salaries and wages to their employees,
> dividends to their stockholders, etc., where they also
> credit deposit account balances, which is additional
> to loans in the creation of money. This puts money
> into circulation not deriving from loans that is
> available to pay interest to the banks in payment for
> financial services rendered.
>
> Now, to Yaseen's assertion:
>
> The ancient scriptures originally written in Semitic
> languages used two words that were erroneously
> translated or interpreted as "usury."
>
> A modern Islamic scholar in the United States writes
> this:
>
>
http://www.submission.org/islam/interest-usury.html
>
> "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."
>
> Which is perfectly consistent with the modern Jewish
> and Christian perspectives on the matter:
>
>
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/jones.usury
>
> "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."
> -
>
> Myro
>
>
> ---------------original message-----------------
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:23:12 +0000
> From: "Peter Challen" <
peterchallen@googlemail.com>
> To:
discussion@globaljusticemovement.net > Subject: Re: [GJM] An excellent programme
>
> I've reached the half-way stage of the programme
> recommended below and use the 'break' to add my
> recommendation to this sanguine critique of a complex
> situation - a remarkable bit of broadcasting.
>
> Peter
>
> On 10/01/2008, Rodney Shakespeare
> <
rodney.shakespeare1@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All.
>
> Alright, I know I should not say this (because I am
> one of the speakers with Moeen Yaseen of
> Globalvision2000) but Global Money Crisis: Just Where
> Does the Buck Stop? is an excellent programme. Moeen
> is tremendous!!
>
> At last we have managed to put across on television
> some analysis of what is wrong with the global economy
> and also put across some idea of the GJM solution.
>
> To see the programe:- go to
www.Presstv.com then
> (left-hand side) Programs then The Agenda then Global
> Money Crisis: -- the programme on Monday, 9th January,
> 2008
>
> Rodney Shakespeare.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
johngrawson@hotmail.com> For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger!
MSN Messenger
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
