News
news The great thaw of America's north is coming
news 3 Weird Impacts From Storm Ophelia Explained
news A Look Back at the McMinnville UFO Photos
news Chinese Space Station to Crash to Earth Soon
news An Eerie Anniversary: October 1987
news Shadow People On The Loose
news A mysterious hole nearly the size of South Carolina has opened in Antarctica's ice
news A Case for Time Travelers
news Floating Wind Farms in the North Atlantic Could Power the World
news UFO' spotted over Yellowstone volcano?
news Is A.I. Going Too Far?



Username:
Password: or Register
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The problem of usury, to end the NWO we need to end it
titanic1
Registered User
User ID: 299024
12-28-2015 08:12 AM

Posts: 9,725



Post: #1
The problem of usury, to end the NWO we need to end it
Advertisement




Usury is the payment of interest on a loan by [a] borrower to [a] lender. The two biblical passages which forbid the taking of interest are: “If you lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shalt thou lay upon him interest” (Exodus 22:24).

[Image: timthumb.gif]

In the old days there was no paper money. The accepted token of exchange was precious metal minted into coins by the Church and the Crown. Because there was only a limited amount of gold and silver available, the economic life of the nation had a certain regularity.

An even greater restriction existed throughout Christendom. This was a prohibition against usury, or charging interest. The Church held it to be a grave sin and the code was upheld by the civil powers. There were harsh penalties for those who broke the law.

[Image: usury1.jpg]

The regulation of usury was to prevent the separation of money from reality. Money is not a good, it is a measure. It is fraud to pretend otherwise, and constitutes theft. Usury is making money from lending money; it is making money from nothing. This is exactly what is happening today on a colossal scale.

Several important things arose from the prohibition of usury in medieval Christendom. Firstly Jews, who had taken to wandering around Europe in the Middle Ages, began to specialize in money-lending and other practices which were forbidden to Christians. Exploited Christians, both peasants and aristocracy, found themselves being bled dry by usurers, which is why there were sporadic uprisings, imprisonments and expulsions of Jews throughout Europe. It is one reason why King Edward I expelled these perfidious people from England in 1290. Oliver Cromwell allowed them back when the moral authority of the Church was undermined and the King was beheaded in 1649.

[Image: AnhonyMigchelsMeme.jpg]

Secondly, gold coins, jewels and other valuables were deposited with people who held strongboxes. This was usually with goldsmiths and money-lenders who, more often than not, were one and the same. These loan-sharks and scriveners realized that, without much chance of being found out, they could charge people for looking after their deposits and then use those deposits – which did not belong to them – to make loans to other people at interest. They soon became rich and powerful.

Gold coins are heavy and awkward to carry around so the custom arose whereby the money-lenders would issue credit notes to depositors who began to trade these notes between themselves in commercial transactions. Paper money had come into existence.

A new form of usury developed as the swindling money-lenders realized the immoral benefits that could be obtained from such a situation. It became apparent to these thieves that they could go one step further than dishonestly using other people’s money for financial advantage at no cost to themselves. They could invent money from absolutely nothing. They could issue credit notes with nothing to back them up and put them into circulation as interest-bearing debts. No-one would be any the wiser. They calculated that they could safely issue notes for up to ten times more than the gold deposits they held, because the depositors would never ask for their deposits back all at the same time.

The principle of modern banking was thus established: invent money from nothing, put it into circulation as “running cash notes” that have to be paid back with real wealth that is produced from our labour, sit back and become unbelievably wealthy and powerful men: hidden rulers of nations.

In England this deceitful system was officially sanctioned in 1694. The usurper of the throne, William of Orange, had overthrown the legitimate King James II with the financial backing and plotting of powerful Jewish financiers in Amsterdam. In return he gave the sovereignty of England to a group of financiers by means of a Charter allowing them to call themselves the Bank of England. The Charter made no mention of issuing the nation’s money, but within minutes of signing the new Bank officials were discussing the form of their “running cash notes.” The same system was adopted in every country by a process of Masonic revolution and manipulation.

FREEMASONRY AND COMMUNISM

Socialist theorists and ideologues have never attacked the essential mechanism of capitalism. Although the injustices of the capitalist system have been attacked in volume after volume, and rightly so, they have never even hinted at the usury upon which the whole system is built and from which all the other injustices stem.

Perhaps this is because so many Communist leaders are Jewish. Most of the ‘Russian Revolutionists’ of 1917 were actually Jews from the lower east side of New York City. Two hundred and seventy-five of them were conveyed to Russia aboard the S.S. Christiana, led by Trotsky and financed by Kuhns, Loebs, Schiffs and Warburgs. This cosy circle of Jews and Freemasons financed both sides of the Great War.

Marx and Engels, two more Jews, wrote the Communist Manifesto on behalf of a secret society calling themselves ‘The League of Just Men.’ This secret society was an arm of the Illuminati, whose power and influence was the catalyst of the French Revolution. One of the founding members of the Illuminati was the House of Rothschild, the Jewish banking house which practically invented supra-nationalism for personal profit.

http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/usury.html

Usury - lending at interest or excessive interest - has, according to known records, been practiced in various parts of the world for at least four thousand years. During this time, there is substantial evidence of intense criticisism by various traditions, institutions and social reformers on moral, ethical, religious and legal grounds. The rationale employed by these wide-ranging critics have included arguments about work ethic, social justice, economic instability, ecological destruction and inter-generational equity. While the contemporary relevance of these largely historical debates are not analysed in detail, the authors contend that their significance is greater than ever before in the context of the modern interest-based global economy.

The concept of “usury” has a long historical life, throughout most of which it has been understood to refer to the practice of charging financial interest in excess of the principle amount of a loan, although in some instances and more especially in more recent times, it has been interpreted as interest above the legal or socially acceptable rate[i]. Accepting this broad definition for the moment, the practice of usury can be traced back approximately four thousand years (Jain, 1929), and during its subsequent history it has been repeatedly condemned, prohibited, scorned and restricted, mainly on moral, ethical, religious and legal grounds. Among its most visible and vocal critics have been the religious institutions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity. To this list may be added ancient Western philosophers and politicians, as well as various modern socio-economic reformers. It is the objective of this paper to outline briefly the history of this critique of usury, to examine reasons for its repeated denouncement and, finally, to intuitively assess the relevance of these arguments to today’s predominantly interest-based global economy. The scope will not extend to a full exploration of some of the proposed modern alternatives to usury, except to describe the growing practice of Islamic banking as an example.

[Image: z13.gif]

titanic1
Registered User
User ID: 299024
12-28-2015 08:14 AM

Posts: 9,725



Post: #2
RE: The problem of usury, to end the NWO we need to end it
HISTORY OF THE CRITIQUE OF USURY

Usury in Hinduism and Buddhism

Among the oldest known references to usury are to be found in ancient Indian religious manuscripts and Jain (1929) provides an excellent summary of these in his work on Indigenous Banking in India. The earliest such record derives from the Vedic texts of Ancient India (2,000-1,400 BC) in which the “usurer” (kusidin) is mentioned several times and interpreted as any lender at interest. More frequent and detailed references to interest payment are to be found in the later Sutra texts (700-100 BC), as well as the Buddhist Jatakas (600-400 BC). It is during this latter period that the first sentiments of contempt for usury are exressed. For example, Vasishtha, a well known Hindu law-maker of that time, made a special law which forbade the higher castes of Brahmanas (priests) and Kshatriyas (warriors) from being usurers or lenders at interest. Also, in the Jatakas, usury is referred to in a demeaning manner: “hypocritical ascetics are accused of practising it”.

By the second century AD, however, usury had become a more relative term, as is implied in the Laws of Manu of that time: “Stipulated interest beyond the legal rate being against (the law), cannot be recovered: they call that a usurious way (of lending)” (Jain, 1929: 3-10). This dilution of the concept of usury seems to have continued through the remaining course of Indian history so that today, while it is still condemned in principle, usury refers only to interest charged above the prevailing socially accepted range and is no longer prohibited or controlled in any significant way.

Usury in Ancient Western Political Philosophy

Among the Ancient Western philosophers who condemned usury can be named Plato, Aristotle, the two Catos, Cicero, Seneca and Plutarch (Birnie, 1958). Evidence that these sentiments found their concurrent manifestation in the civil law of that period can be seen, for example, from the Lex Genucia reforms in Republican Rome (340 BC) which outlawed interest altogether. Nevertheless, in practice, ways of evading such legislation were found and by the last period of the Republic, usury was once again rife. It was the Democratic party in Rome who rededicated themselves to the cause of those suffering the burden of debt, and under the banner of Julius Caesar, a ceiling on interest rates of 12% was set, and later under Justinian, lowered even further to between 4% and 8% (Birnie, 1958). Clearly, this left fertile ground for the assault on usury which the Church would mount following its Christianisation of the Roman Empire.

[Image: usury.jpg]

Usury in Islam

The criticism of usury in Islam was well established during the Prophet Mohammed's life and reinforced by various of his teachings in the Holy Quran[ii] dating back to around 600 AD. The original word used for usury in this text was riba which literally means “excess or addition”. This was accepted to refer directly to interest on loans so that, according to Islamic economists Choudhury and Malik (1992), by the time of Caliph Ulmar, the prohibition of interest was a well established working principle integrated into the Islamic economic system. It is not true that this interpretation of usury has been universally accepted or applied in the Islamic world. Indeed, a school of Islamic thought which emerged in the 19th Century, led by Sir Sayyed, still argues for a interpretative differentiation between usury, which it is claimed refers to consumptional lending, and interest which they say refers to lending for commercial investment (Ahmed, 1958). Nevertheless, there does seem to be evidence in modern times for what Choudhury and Malik describe as “a gradual evolution of the institutions of interest-free financial enterprises across the world” (1992: 104). They cite, for instance, the current existence of financial institutions in Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the Dar-al-Mal-al-Islami in Geneva and Islamic trust companies in North America. This growing practice of Islamic banking will be discussed more fully in a later section as a modern application of usury prohibition.

Usury in Judaism

Criticism of usury in Judaism has its roots in several Biblical passages in which the taking of interest is either forbidden, discouraged or scorned[iii]. The Hebrew word for interest is neshekh, literally meaning "a bite" and is believed to refer to the exaction of interest from the point of view of the debtor. In the associated Exodus and Leviticus texts, the word almost certainly applies only to lending to the poor and destitute, while in Deuteronomy, the prohibition is extended to include all moneylending, excluding only business dealings with foreigners. In the levitical text, the words tarbit or marbit are also used to refer to the recovery of interest by the creditor.

In addition to these biblical roots are various talmudic extensions of the prohibitions of interest, known as avak ribbit, literally "the dust of interest" which apply, for example, to certain types of sales, rent and work contracts. This is distinguished from rubbit kezuzah, interest proper in an amount or at a rate agreed upon between lender and borrower. The difference in law is that the latter, if it has been paid by the borrower to the the lender, is recoverable from the lender, while the former, once paid, is not recoverable, although a contract tainted by the dust of interest will not be enforced. (The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1912).
titanic1
Registered User
User ID: 299024
12-28-2015 08:15 AM

Posts: 9,725



Post: #3
RE: The problem of usury, to end the NWO we need to end it
Despite the prohibition on taking interest, there is considerable evidence to suggest that this rule was not widely observed in biblical times. In addition to several references in the Old Testament to creditors being exacting and implacable in their extraction of interest[iv], from the Elephantine papyri it appears that among the Jews in Egypt in the fifth century B.C.E. it was a matter of course that interest would be charged on loans (Encyclodpedia Judaica, 1971). This charitable nature of the prohibition on interest suggests that its violation was not regarded as a criminal offense with penal sanctions attatched, but rather as a moral transgression.

The phenomenon of evasion can also be partly explained by changing economic conditions, beginning in the amoraic period in Bayolonia when interest prohibition was held to no longer be compatible with the eocnomic needs of the community. In time, a standard form of legalization of interest was established, known as hetter iskah, meaning the permission to form a partnership, which has become so accepted that nowadays all interest transactions are freely carried out in accordance with Jewish law, by simply adding to the note or contract concerned the words al-pi hetter iskah. (Encyclodpedia Judaica, 1971).

Usury in Christianity

Despite its Judaic roots, the critique of usury was most ferverently taken up as a cause by the institutions of the Christian Church where the debate prevailed with great intensity for well over a thousand years[v]. The Old Testament decrees were resurrected and a New Testament reference to usury added to fuel the case[vi]. Building on the authority of these texts, the Roman Catholic Church had by the fourth century AD prohibited the taking of interest by the clergy; a rule which they extended in the fifth century to the laity. In the eighth century under Charlemagne, they pressed further and declared usury to be a general criminal offence. This anti-usury movement continued to gain momentum during the early Middle Ages and perhaps reached its zenith in 1311 when Pope Clement V made the ban on usury absolute and declared all secular legislation in its favour, null and void (Birnie, 1952).

Increasingly thereafter, and despite numerous subsequent prohibitions by Popes and civil legislators, loopholes in the law and contradictions in the Church's arguments were found and along with the growing tide of commercialisation, the pro-usury counter-movement began to grow. The rise of Protestantism and its pro-capitalism influence is also associated with this change (McGrath, 1990), but it should be noted that both Luther and Calvin expressed some reservations about the practice of usury despite their belief that it could not be universally condemned. Calvin, for instance, enumerated seven crucial instances in which interest remained “sinful”, but these have been generally ignored and his stance taken as a wholesale sanctioning of interest (Birnie, 1952). As a result of all these influences, sometime around 1620, according to theologian Ruston, “usury passed from being an offence against public morality which a Christian government was expected to suppress to being a matter of private conscience [and] a new generation of Christian moralists redefined usury as excessive interest” (1993: 173-4).

This position has remained pervasive through to present-day thinking in the Church, as the indicative views of the Church of Scotland (1988) suggest when it declares in its study report on the ethics of investment and banking: “We accept that the practice of charging interest for business and personal loans is not, in itself, incompatible with Christian ethics. What is more difficult to determine is whether the interest rate charged is fair or excessive.” Similarly, it is illustrative that, in contrast to the clear moral injunction against usury still expressed by the Church in Pope Leo XIII's 1891 Rerum Novarum as “voracious usury ... an evil condemned frequently by the Church but nevertheless still practised in deceptive ways by avaricious men”, Pope John Paul II's 1989 Sollicitude Rei Socialis lacks any explicit mention of usury except the vaguest implication by way of acknowledging the Third World Debt crisis.

Usury in Modern Reformist Thinking

Some may be surprised to discover that Adam Smith, despite his image as the “Father of the Free-market Capitalism” and his general advocacy of laissez-fair economics, came out strongly in support of controlling usury (Jadlow, 1977; Levy, 1987). While he opposed a complete prohibition of interest, he was in favour of the imposition of an interest rate ceiling. This, he felt, would ensure that low-risk borrowers who were likely to undertake socially beneficial investments were not deprived of funds as a result of “the greater part of the money which was to be lent [being] lent to prodigals and projectors [investors in risky, speculative ventures], who alone would be willing to give [an unregulated] high interest rate” (Smith, 1937: 339).

The great twentieth century economist John Maynard Keynes held a similar position believing that “the disquisitions of the schoolmen [on usury] were directed towards elucidation of a formula which should allow the schedule of the marginal efficiency to be high, whilst using rule and custom and the moral law to keep down the rate of interest, so that a wise Government is concerned to curb it by statute and custom and even by invoking the sanctions of the Moral Law” (1936: 351-3).

Another less well known anti-usury economic reformist was Silvio Gesell (1904), yet Keynes wrote that the world could learn more from him than from Marx. Gesell, as a successful nineteenth century merchant in Germany and Argentina, condemned interest on the basis that his sales were more often related to the ‘price’ of money (i.e. interest) than people's needs or the quality of his products. His proposal of making money a public service subject to a use fee led to widespread experimentation in Austria, France, Germany, Spain Switzerland, and the United States under the banner of the so-called “stamp script movement”, but these initiatives were all squashed when their success began to threaten the national banking monopolies (Kennedy, 1995). Margrit Kennedy (1995), a German professor at the University of Hannover, is one of the most vocal contemporary critics of interest who builds on Gesell’s ideas, believing that “interest ... acts like cancer in our social structure”. She takes up the cause for “interest and inflation-free money” by suggesting a modification of banking practice to incorporate a circulation fee on money, acting somewhat like a negative interest rate mechanism.

Finally, another school of modern interest critics have their roots in the complementary work of several socio-economic reformists of the early twentieth century, namely Douglas (1924), Fisher (1935), Simons (1948) and Soddy (1926). Their chief common premise was that it is completely wrong and unacceptable for commercial banks to hold a monopoly on the money or credit creation process. For banks to then charge interest (including to government) on money which they had in the first place created out of nothing, having suffered no opportunity cost or sacrifice, amounted to nothing less than immoral and fraudulent practice. Various alternative systems are proposed by the original authors and carried forward by their modern-day torch-bearers, for example, the Social Credit Secretariat and the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform.

RATIONALE FOR THE CRITIQUE OF USURY

Throughout the history of the criticism of usury, various reasons and rationale have been forwarded in support of this position. While some are unique to particular traditions or individuals, many tread on common ground which this section will briefly attempt to synthesise.

Usury as Unearned Income

The Church's simplest and perhaps earliest objection to usury was on the basis that it constituted unearned income, an idea which stemmed from its general doctrine of Just Price. The Lateran Council of 1515 clearly expressed such a view of the Church: “This is the proper interpretation of usury when gain is sought to be acquired from the use of a thing, not in itself fruitful (such as a flock or a field) without labour, expense or risk on the part of the lender.” Birnie reinforces this point by noting that “to live without labour was denounced as unnatural, and so Dante put usurers in the same circle of hell as the inhabitants of Sodom and other practisers of unnatural vice” (1952: 4).

This is also the rationale Ahmad uses to explain why in Islam God[vii] “permits trade yet forbids usury”: “The difference is that profits are the result of initiative, enterprise and efficiency. They result after a definite value-creating process. Not so with interest”; also “interest is fixed, profit fluctuates. In the case of interest you know your return and can be sure of it. In the case of profit you have to work to ensure it” (1958: 25). Perhaps Aristotle had similar sentiments in mind when he argued that “a piece of money cannot beget another”.
titanic1
Registered User
User ID: 299024
12-28-2015 08:15 AM

Posts: 9,725



Post: #4
RE: The problem of usury, to end the NWO we need to end it
There is an important psycho-political dimension to this argument. Keynes’ biographer, Skidelsky, intriguingly comments that “Keynes’s sense that, at some level too deep to be captured by mathematics, ‘love of money’ as an end, not a means, is at the root of the world’s economic problem” (1992: 454). Hence, at a fundamental level of analysis, the so-called evils of usury must be understood as being connected with money being a social psychological construct legitimised by the power dynamics of a given political economy which may or may not be democratically and consciously legitimatised. An illustration of this understanding can be seen in the Christian tradition where Jesus is asked whether taxes should be paid to Caesar. Before uttering the famous words, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” he tellingly first asks to be shown a coin and inquires, “Whose image and superscription hath it? (Luke 20:24)”. In other words, “What power structure legitimises this currency?” Jesus’s response therefore said much more than merely “pay your taxes.” It invited questioning of the very psycho-spiritual power dynamics that constitute the deep roots of human relationship in economy, and which have always caused matters of political economy to be central to prophetic witness.

Usury is what marks the distinction between money being simply a socially contracted abstract mechanism to lubricate between supply and demand, and money as an end in itself. As an end in itself, as a social commodity legitimised through usury to tax other economic activity, the honest process of living by the sweat of one’s brow is short-circuited. The true dignity and full reward of ordinary labour is compromised. Money thus becomes self-perpetuating power in itself rather than just a mediating agent of power. And it is the relentlessness of compound interest in the face of adversity that sets the potential cruelty of usury apart from equity-based return on investment. Resonant with Skidelsky’s comment about Keynes, one can see how it is the love of money as an end in itself, not the use of money itself, that is said to be the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6). It was in recognition of the the need to have corrective feedback mechanisms that Islam not only injuncts usury, but also imposes Zakat or wealth tax. And more radical still, the Old Testament proposes a complete economic readjustment through the “Jubilee” process every fifty years (Leviticus 25), though there is no evidence that such wholescale redistribution of wealth in all forms was ever actually carried out. Perhaps it is a prophetic vision whose time has yet to come.

http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/1998_usury.htm
Randpaul4prez
Banned
User ID: 267856
12-28-2015 08:35 AM

Posts: 90



Post: #5
RE: The problem of usury, to end the NWO we need to end it
Hitler tried to end usury, he did not succeed.
Strategos
Against Dystopia
User ID: 337971
12-28-2015 08:53 AM

Posts: 18,720



Post: #6
RE: The problem of usury, to end the NWO we need to end it
BumpBumpBumpBumpBumpBumpBump


Hurray!


My problem with the Austrian Economists is that they condone Usury and interest.

I say if we do not have a strict definition of usury that means any interest then we will never solve this problem.

Usury is a world-destroyer. Usury is the world destroyer.
WTC7SMOKINGUN
The REAL culprits are still at large !
User ID: 156414
12-28-2015 09:04 AM

Posts: 11,798



Post: #7
RE: The problem of usury, to end the NWO we need to end it
[Image: 5680defc920a8.png]
/SV/*
lop guest
User ID: 283450
12-28-2015 09:13 AM

 



Post: #8
RE: The problem of usury, to end the NWO we need to end it
The problem is not interest, but greed(usury). No problem charging interest for lending on risky business ventures, because there is risk involved.. venture capital kind of stuff and whatnot. Sink or swim, for both parties. Credit to buy sh*t you don't need, like a boat, holiday, etc. should also be charged at interest, for obvious reasons. Interest should be charged in a fair manner, based on risk in a truly free market. Banks and certain "investment" individuals certainly don't need to make billions of dollars for doing fuckall. Usury...


There's a change coming:-)







#EmpireDown
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 337971
12-28-2015 09:17 AM

 



Post: #9
RE: The problem of usury, to end the NWO we need to end it
/SV/*  Wrote: (12-28-2015 09:13 AM)
The problem is not interest, but greed(usury). No problem charging interest for lending on risky business ventures, because there is risk involved.. venture capital kind of stuff and whatnot. Sink or swim, for both parties. Credit to buy sh*t you don't need, like a boat, holiday, etc. should also be charged at interest, for obvious reasons. Interest should be charged in a fair manner, based on risk in a truly free market. Banks and certain "investment" individuals certainly don't need to make billions of dollars for doing fuckall. Usury...


There's a change coming:-)







#EmpireDown

With your approach, we will never make any progress. We're pretty much looking at another 10,000 years of economic slavery for the human race unti lie deal with this problem.
/SV/*
lop guest
User ID: 283450
12-28-2015 09:29 AM

 



Post: #10
RE: The problem of usury, to end the NWO we need to end it
LoP Guest  Wrote: (12-28-2015 09:17 AM)
/SV/*  Wrote: (12-28-2015 09:13 AM)
The problem is not interest, but greed(usury). No problem charging interest for lending on risky business ventures, because there is risk involved.. venture capital kind of stuff and whatnot. Sink or swim, for both parties. Credit to buy sh*t you don't need, like a boat, holiday, etc. should also be charged at interest, for obvious reasons. Interest should be charged in a fair manner, based on risk in a truly free market. Banks and certain "investment" individuals certainly don't need to make billions of dollars for doing fuckall. Usury...









Popcorn


#SmallWorld

With your approach, we will never make any progress. We're pretty much looking at another 10,000 years of economic slavery for the human race unti lie deal with this problem.


Do you mean to suggest we just give money to everyone? chuckle
Strategos
Against Dystopia
User ID: 337971
12-28-2015 09:33 AM

Posts: 18,720



Post: #11
RE: The problem of usury, to end the NWO we need to end it
I'm thinking more along the lines of having people work to earn their money.
titanic1
Registered User
User ID: 299024
12-28-2015 09:48 AM

Posts: 9,725



Post: #12
RE: The problem of usury, to end the NWO we need to end it
Hi Stratagos. It certainly would be better if people worked for the money for their purchases rather than just financing it. I remember them talking about if you were a college student and charged a cup of coffee, that cup of coffee after compound interest would end up costing you $10 or more in the long run. I try to just pay cash for things. Purchases like a home, that may require some financing. When you think how much interest you end up paying for your home, plus all the repairs and maintenance you have to do it might be cheaper to rent.
/SV/*
lop guest
User ID: 283450
12-28-2015 09:55 AM

 



Post: #13
RE: The problem of usury, to end the NWO we need to end it
Strategos  Wrote: (12-28-2015 09:33 AM)
I'm thinking more along the lines of having people work to earn their money.


Me too, but credit facilitates trade.. and trade is good for everyone. The current system allows the "credit issuers" to gain unnatural profit at the expense of the system/everyone. It's unsustainable and out of balance. Some people made and took advantage of holes and weakness in the system itself, but it doesn't make the concept of fair interest any less relevant. Depends on how you look at it;-) Human nature will always require a facility to borrow from the future, and so we will need a fair system of interest, based on level of risk..
Strategos
Against Dystopia
User ID: 337971
12-28-2015 10:04 AM

Posts: 18,720



Post: #14
RE: The problem of usury, to end the NWO we need to end it
/SV/*  Wrote: (12-28-2015 09:55 AM)
Strategos  Wrote: (12-28-2015 09:33 AM)
I'm thinking more along the lines of having people work to earn their money.


Me too, but credit facilitates trade.. and trade is good for everyone. The current system allows the "credit issuers" to gain unnatural profit at the expense of the system/everyone. It's unsustainable and out of balance. Some people made and took advantage of holes and weakness in the system itself, but it doesn't make the concept of fair interest any less relevant. Depends on how you look at it;-) Human nature will always require a facility to borrow from the future, and so we will need a fair system of interest, based on level of risk..

you can have credit without interest...any business can just say: "look, you can buy our car, just make a $200 a month payment for umpteen months, interest free"

nothing prevents people from doing that

except the car manufacturers are also slaves to the bankers who are extracting interest from them.
Strategos
Against Dystopia
User ID: 337971
12-28-2015 10:07 AM

Posts: 18,720



Post: #15
RE: The problem of usury, to end the NWO we need to end it
Interest ruins everything

Interest ruins every industry.

Interest encourages the medical industry to transform itself into the pharmaceutical industry

interest encourages agriculture to transform itself into a giant GMO dispensing mechanism

interest encourages weapons dealers to lobby congress for more and more wars

interest encourages the housing industry to push for zoning regulations that ensure that no one can afford a house any longer

Interest is the cancer that consumes the entire world.
Advertisement










Contact UsConspiracy Forum. No reg. required! Return to TopReturn to ContentRSS Syndication