| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Definition of usury. | | Date: | Sunday, June 29, 2008 21:29:56 (+0200) | | From: | Per Almgren <almgren_per @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 5429 (written by Joe Thomson) |
Joe Thomson skrev:
> (Martin wrote, quoting from R H Tawney's "Religion and the Rise of
> Capitalism" :-) "What remained to the end unlawful was that which appears
> in modern
> economics textbooks as 'pure interest' - interest as a fixed payment
> stipulated in advance for a loan of money or wares without risk to the
> lender.... The essence or usury was that it was certain, and that whether
> the borrower gained or lost, the usurer took his pound of flesh."
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> (Joe asks:- ) Wouldn't the money the Banks now PAY their depositors as
> interest on their deposits meet Tawney's description of "pure interest" and
> be the "essence of usury" by his definition?
>
> On a typical term deposit the interest is certain regardless of whether the
> Bank is gaining or losing in its business activities. It's a fixed payment
> stipulated in advance. And since there is now Deposit Insurance coverage
> to stipulated amounts per deposit, by staying within those limits per
> deposit
> there is virtually no risk to the 'creditor', (depositor ~ if Bank deposits
> are not 'bailments' in law but are classed as 'debts' of the Banks instead,
> as was discussed on here some time ago).
>
> So are we all committing some "unlawful" sin by RECEIVING "usury" on our
> deposits?
>
>
Not all of us. Some of us has put our money into interst-free accounts. :-}
Per Almgren
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message