| Subject: | RE: [socialcredit] Re: Definition of usury. | | Date: | Wednesday, July 2, 2008 00:28:41 (+0000) | | From: | John G Rawson <johngrawson @.......com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 5437 (written by Wallace Klinck) |
Dead right on the practical side, Wally. But it depends on the context.
If I understand correctly, the stated purpose of this group is to study the ideas of CHD, not to promote them.
That, I believe, makes reasonable the interminable emergence of contentious side-issues whenever we look like getting round to reform itself.
Active promotion is what we do elsewhere, surely?
Regards.
John R.
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:13:43 -0600
> From: wmklinck@shaw.ca
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: Definition of usury.
>
> Inflation of financial prices is a violation of natural law.
> Unrepayable and exponentially accumulating debt is a consequence of
> false conventions of financial cost-accountancy. Debt under the
> present financial system is both inevitable and unavoidable. It is
> ultimately financially unrepayable and leads to crises of liquidity
> wherein foreclosures by the lenders upon the pledged assets of the
> borrowers are an intrinsic characteristic of the existing financial
> system. The consequential, and undeniably intended, result of this
> reality is the concentration and centralization of both economic and
> political power--a process which advances at an accelerating and, one
> might even say breathtaking, rate in the modern world. In a Social
> Credit dispensation price inflation would not exist, nor would there
> be need for overall consumer debt. The lending "business" (if one
> can accord to it a name of such respect) essentially would be
> terminated so far as consumers are concerned. Producers would be able
> to recover their entire financial costs from consumers who would at
> all times have sufficient financial income potentially to claim the
> product of industry and provide, thereby, for the liquidation of all
> financial costs of production within each "cycle" of production. In a
> Social Credit dispensation, this discussion with all its sophistries
> would be irrelevant. Would we not be better disposed to devote our
> energies to the dispersion of information regarding Social Credit
> principles and policies amongst the citizens, professional and lay, of
> our nations? As Social Crediters, we are concerned with beneficial
> alternatives, not with conformance to the existing order of false
> values and destructive policies. In Christian theological terms, we
> seek the Kingdom of 'God--not obeisance to the dispensation of the
> Anti-Christ. In less dramatic and more prosaic terms, if one prefers,
> we seek good over bad. While, as has been said, it pays to understand
> one's adversaries, it also is not helpful to become so obsessed with,
> or immersed in, the activities and policies of one's adversaries as
> to neglect the positive aspects of one's own goals and well-being.
>
> On conspiracies: A conspiracy occurs when two or more people engage
> in some activity while being less than candid with others concerning
> its actual nature, either for selfish interest or, conceivably, even
> for some intended altruistic end. Conspiracy not only exists but
> abounds throughout society at various levels of activity and
> consciousness. One might say, from practical experience and
> observation, that the political process is rife with, perhaps the
> apotheosis of, conspiracy. Being a quest for power, that is, in the
> existing order of things, simply the "nature of the beast." I recall,
> if memory serves correctly, once hearing the Roman senator Cicero
> cited as declaring that politicians were not born but excreted.
> Cicero was situated so as to have a rather graphic and realistic view
> of the circumstances prevailing during his time--and circumstances do
> not appear to have improved with the passage of time. There are petty
> conspiracies and grand conspiracies (which may be also, of course,
> either petty or grand follies)--those which affect a few and those
> which concern the destiny of civilizations. Our concern is to
> understand and identify policies, good and bad, to locate their
> sources, if possible and if necessary, and to deal with them
> appropriately and accordingly.
>
> Sincerely
> Wally
>
>
> On 1-Jul-08, at 10:40 AM, william_b_ryan@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > You are quite right, Joe, that because of inflation there is "not
> > reward without risk" to the recipients of interest. The biggest
> > risk is the risk of default--the default insurance premium is the
> > largest component of the totality of interest collected. Which is
> > why interest rates on unsecured loans can be four or five times the
> > rates on secured loans, such as mortgages.
> >
> > The larger question is what in the world does risk have to do with
> > the morality of collecting or paying interest? After all, in the
> > creditary economy, interest is merely the service charge for
> > financial services rendered. The so-called moral proscription is
> > based on fallacious Aristotelian economics and false translations
> > from the ancient Scriptures. We in the twenty-first century should
> > be above such errors. We are after all expected to be educated and
> > open-minded people.
> >
> > Lenders, as do all entrepreneurs, attempt to minimize risk. It is
> > perfectly moral to do so, so long as they are playing within the
> > rules.
> >
> > Besides, the default premium and adjustments for inflation are only
> > two of the components of interest collected. The others are to
> > cover ordinary business expenses, including salaries and wages; plus
> > a mark-up for a reasonable profit.
> >
> >
> > --------------replying to-------------------
> > Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Definition of usury.
> > Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 18:49:06 (-0700)
> > From: Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
> > In reply to: Message 5405 (written by Martin Hattersley)
> >
> > (Martin wrote:-) Something that concerns me about Douglas is the
> > fact that he appears to wish to superimpose his Social Credit
> > remedies on a banking system not fundamentally changed from the
> > present. As I see it, the toleration of interest (reward without
> > risk), is in fact a means by which those who issue credit become
> > more and more wealthy at the expenses of the public, the value of
> > whose money is steadily eroded by inflation.
> >
> > (Joe comments:-) I think what you're saying about Douglas above may
> > well be true, Martin.
> >
> > But is there really "reward without risk" for those who "issue
> > credit" if the value of the public's money is steadily eroded by
> > inflation?
> >
> > For is not the "public's money" the same money by which you say the
> > issuers of credit will become "more and more wealthy"?
> >
> > And if it is, and it's being steadily eroded by inflation over
> > time in terms of what it'll buy, there's certainly a "risk" present
> > there, too, I would think.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Martin Hattersley" <jmartinh@shaw.ca>
> > To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 4:15 PM
> > Subject: [socialcredit] Definition of usury.
> >
> > I have been interested by the discussion on what is usury that has
> > been taking place.
> >
> > R.H.Tawney, in his classic "Relligion and the Rise of Capitalism",
> > after discussing and dismissing various types of dealing which
> > involve risk, and so are not usurious, gives a definition as follows:
> >
> > "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 poind
> > of flesh."
> > (Transaction Publishers edition, 1998, p.42)
> >
> > Summarizing the present relationship between the Capitalist and the
> > Christian approaches to life, where the former has effectively
> > excluded the area of commerce from the control of morality, he
> > concludes: (ibid, p.286)
> >
> > "the quality in modern society which is most sharply opposed to the
> > teaching ascribed to the founder of the Christian faith ... consists
> > in the assumption, accepted by most reformers with hardly less
> > naivete than by the defenders of the established order, that the
> > attainment of material riches is the supreme object of human
> > endeavour and the final criterion of human success...What is certain
> > is that it is the negation of any system of thought or morals which
> > can, except by a metaphor, be described as Christian. Compromise is
> > as impossible between the church of Christ and the idolatry of
> > Wealth, which is the practical religion of Capitalist societies, as
> > it was between the Church and the State idolatry of the Roman Empire."
> >
> > In his "Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt", Nobelist Frederick Soddy
> > sets out the psychology of this approach in the following words:
> > (page 122)
> >
> > "Psychologically, the economic aim of the individual is, always has
> > been, and probably always will be, to secure a permanent revenue
> > independent of further effort, proof against the passage of time and
> > the chance of circumstance, to support himself in old age and his
> > family after him in perpetuity. He endeavours to do so by
> > accumulating so much property in the heyday of his youth that he and
> > his heirs may live on the interest on it in perpetuity afterwards.
> > Economic and social history is the conflict of this human aspiration
> > with the laws of physics, which make such a perpetuum mobile
> > impossible, and reduces the problem merely to the method by which
> > one individual may get another individual or the community into his
> > debt and prevent repayment, so that the individual or community must
> > share the produce of their efforts with their creditor."
> >
> > Something that concerns me about Douglas is the fact that he appears
> > to wish to superimpose his Social Credit remedies on a banking
> > system not fundamentally changed from the present. As I see it, the
> > toleration of interest (reward without risk), is in fact a means by
> > which those who issue credit become more and more wealthy at the
> > expenses of the public, the value of whose money is steadily eroded
> > by inflation. It's certainly happening at the present time, when the
> > system at least in the United States appears to have been pushed to
> > the limits, and all signs are pointing at the moment to a very
> > unpleasant period of "Stagflation". Maybe this is why Muslims, who
> > do not allow this type of banking, are so unpopular in the
> > Capitalist world.
> >
> > Comments, anyone?
> >
> > Martin Hattersley,
> > 5929-189 St.,
> > EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M 2J1
> > Phone (780) 483-5442
> > e-mail <jmartinh@shaw.ca>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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 wmklinck@shaw.ca
> > For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Download today! Free Windows Live software. Chat, search, share pics and more. |
|
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
