| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: Definition of usury. | | Date: | Friday, August 8, 2008 22:08:02 (+1200) | | From: | William Hugh McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
|
Hi BILL. PER et al
having, at last, restored my internet connection I
have read, with interest, (pardon the pun) the various comments amount the
origins of our present international accounting system. I believe it had its
origin in the city states of Italy during the late 13th century where
Italian bankers freely "Lent" money to most of the monarchs of western
Europe particularly Edward III who used the money to build castles across
Flanders and Normandy. The process was simple the King accepted a sum of
money from the bankers in coin and ageed to pay the sum back plus a gratuity
fee for using those coins. this led eventually to the sum being "Lent" to a
monarch in return for a constant fee per year. The final stage in the
convcersion process was the institution of the "Lending fee" being quoted as
a percentage of the original fee. This of course very rapidly reverted to a
constant levy on the borrowed sum which was, in effect, "compoud interest".
The original system was within the precepts of the church and could not be
classified as interest per se. It was a commercial investment in a building
project which could legitimately expect a monetary return from the person to
whom the money was given. Once the systerm was established the church and
others who recognised the system as a method of imposing imterest on money
lent to others it was impossible to stop and so the whole system spiralled
and became accepted as a legitimate way of conducting monetary affairs. The
involvement of jews into the system was quite arbitrary and almost
accidental. Jews had always been involved in financial operations in Europe
from the time of the Romans because it was one of the only trades to which
thsy were allowed to become involved. As Bill says by the 14th century most
bankers were not Jews and so the rules that prevented Jewish bankers from
charging interest on loans had been altered to allow it to take place
against the ordinances of the RC Church. This is how our present debt money
system originated its sole purpose was originally to enrich Italian city
state bankers at the exspense of the rest of the monarchzs of Western
Europe. It is still operating in this fashion except that the Italian City
states lost their control of world trade to countries like the UK and the
USA once the industrial revolution took place, and now the monetary control
appearsd to be vested inWall and Threadneedle sts. The efect however is
still to enrich the monetary controllers at the ecpense of the rest of
humankind. a thoroughly bad consequense of the system. do these comments
clarify some of the debate that has raged over the last few weeks.
Bill Mc Gunnigle
----- Original Message -----
From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 5:55 AM
Subject: [socialcredit] Re: Definition of usury.
> The problems with interest on money (the unearned income part) and with
> "fractional reserve banking" would not disappear by just ignoring them.
>
> Per Almgren
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> What is the "unearned income part" of interest on money? Perhaps you will
> tell us, Per.
>
> It is most definitely earned and in the modern creditary economy is the
> service charge for a financial service being rendered, which includes four
> components: 1) ordinary business expenses incurred in supplying the
> service, including salaries and wages being paid to employees; 2) default
> premium to cover loans being defaulted; 3) inflation adjustment to cover
> inflation; and 4) profit.
>
> Your problem, Per, is that you have Gesellist ideology imprinted on your
> brain, and can't see that the so-called "interest free" bank you are
> associated with (JAK) actually charges several times the interest rate
> charged by conventional banks.
>
> The reason for this is that JAK requires forced savings that are not in
> reduction to principal, such that the various fees being charged are
> against what is in reality a much smaller principal than JAK claims,
> effectively increasing substantially the real interest rates being
> charged.
>
> See the attached diagram. Notice that approximately half way through the
> amortization period the effective principal has become zero. Past that
> point it has effectively become negative, yet the borrower continues to
> pay fees to JAK on non-existent principal.
>
> From the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago:
>
> "Required (compensating) deposit balances: A bank may require that a
> borrower maintain a certain percentage of the loan amount on deposit as a
> condition for obtaining the loan. The borrower, then, does not have the
> use of the entire loan amount but rather the use of the loan amount less
> the amount that must be kept on deposit. The effective rate of interest is
> greater than it would be if no compensating deposit balance were
> required."
>
> For claiming to be "interest free" the JAK bank would be a deceptive trade
> practice in the United States.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message