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
