Should the usurers be driven out of the temple?

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

The Medici family of Renaissance Florence are greatly admired today for their patronage of the arts……

………and for founding one of the first recognizably modern banks. In other words, the Medicis were money lenders. In fact, they were Usurers — they loaned money for which interest was charged, and thus made their fortune.

Usury has been condemned by many cultures/religions, including the Romans, the Greeks, Christianity and Buddhism. Modern Islam still considers this practice to be sinful. In the modern world this situation has been turned upside down: far from being considered reprehensible, far from its practitioners being ostracized or outlawed, they have come to be the most respected and valued members of our society. Bankers rank extremely highly and wield inordinate amounts of power. They influence governments.

How is it that our moral values can have been turned upside down in this way? Were the Ancients so wrong? I think not. I think that, as in so many ways, those in power have managed to pull a fast one, have managed to white-wash their base practices to the extent that, far from being seen as the base practices that they are, they are now seen as benign and morally pure practices that support and maintain the function of our society.

Why the Ancients abhorred usury I do not know, but I suspect that they intuitively sensed and understood that usury did not enhance life and that it did not improve society but on the contrary that it degraded life and caused social problems. The difference today is that philosophy has been invented, and the Enlightenment has happened. Intuition has become a bad word. Reason is all. And reason cannot prove that usury is wrong. In fact, many such as Adam Smith have found themselves able to reason that usury is most beneficial to society. Of course, there was also Karl Marx who was able to find that usury IS an abomination.

The trouble is that something else the Ancients knew intuitively is that reason will get you nowhere. Reason can argue both sides of the case. In complex situations reason is the very Devil and should be consigned to Hell — the place to which people who rely overmuch upon reason consign themselves.

So, when one is trying to decide upon the moral value of usury then one must take recourse to one’s senses, one’s experience and rely upon intuition………

……….if you do that the situation is crystal clear and all doubt is removed: usury is an abomination.

2

Intuition is fine for you. But you need reason to convince anybody ELSE to agree with you.

3

I have no interest in convincing anybody else to agree with me. In my world it is not what you believe that matters, but the functioning of your mind. The mind is always capable of growth and development. You just have to exercise it. The more able your mind, the more well developed, the better an understanding of the world you are able to arrive at. It is up to you, to the individual, to come to their own understanding of the world. So on these forums it is not about persuading other people to one’s opinion; it is about giving each other something to think about. Thus it is best to mix with people whose view of the world/beliefs are quite different from one’s own.

4

Ok

5

They were driven out of the temples.

Next let’s drive them out of government.

6

So if banks cannot profit from their services then niether should a ditchdigger get paid for their services. A farmer or rancher should not either infact no one should profit from any effort or work for anyone if banks cannot profit from their efforts and service. All payment is usary.

7

Yes. You have anticipated my future posts. That is the extent of the corruption in our society. However, I would say this: although usuary is how our society works, those at the top “take a loan of”, while those at the bottom “get taken a loan of”. It is possible to run a society without such corruption. Before hotels, hospitality was freely given in many societies. Before money was made from metal, it could be made e.g. from shells, and it had quite a different meaning and was used in a different way. However, these are issues I am currently exploring.

8

If a person does all the work on a farm, should they not gain if others take the produce or should that person get nothing but one small portion? The banks have the money they have managed it into a fine field of produce that others want. It would be corrupt to use without payment. It is just a way of barter/trade. Corruption is wanting something, thinking its your right that it should just be given without you doing a darn thing, that is usary.

9

Which is what banks do. When a bank lends Money, it can now invest that same sum (often multiples of that sum). So the bank is now owed what it loaned you, plus the interest on the loan, plus whatever it makes off the stock market or whatever it Invests in. Banks are magically creating Money out of nothing and then investing it and making Money off of it many times over at the same time. This is nothing at all in any way like a farmer who actually makes something, produces, well, produce, and should make Money off that.

10

Where does intuition come from?

Is it innate(inborn)? Is it socially engineered (from childhood/social norms)? Is it universal in its qualities (does everybody intuit the same way)?

Did the people who lent money at interest intuit against it but proceeded anyway (reasoned)? Do they experience guilt or shame as a result?

Did they intuit FOR it?

Does a form of ‘usury’ exist in nature? :-k

11

Against the laws of Solomon and the Catholics, banks are now allowed to loan 80% more money than they have, charge interest on the money they never had, and invest future interest and savings in order to alter the stability of preferred stockholders and thus alter the market itself (not to mention the ability to control the amount of currency and thus the entire economy via extortion, eg JP Morgan).

Fiat financing is a means to manipulate power into the hands of those controlling the money which of course is then used to ensure that control remains in their hands. It is nothing at all like farming unless you are talking about Monsanto’s food manufacturing with the same goals in mind as the banks (food currency).

12

Monsato is going down soon. I aprove their product but not practice.
And that a bank can loan what it does not have so that someone can buy a home or a needed education or vehicle, is damn good management. Wish I had such credit ability. I see no corruption just agreement on transactions between adults.

13

It’s the charging of interest that’s the problem.

14

Intuition is innate. In our society it is out of favour being over-ruled by science. The people who lent money at interest may well, at least those who were the originators, the first people to charge interest, have had an intuitive sense that they were doing wrong. However, the motivation is power, and that is like a drug. So they would have been too hooked by the drug to pay any attention to intuition when it was directing them away from the highs.

Intuitively I would say there is no such thing as usury in nature.

15

Why appeal to intuition in order to garbage usury. Did anyone ever say that it had a solution for any sustainable model?

Adam Smith was no more a philosopher than Chef Boyardee is gourmet dining. If anything “neoclassical economics” is good for, like every other oxymoron, it’s to capitalize on the already corrupt.

The Usurers already were driven out of the temple. How do you drive them off the planet?

By the time you answer “why,” good luck explaining your ingenious formula to a sun-scorched dead planet.

16

Yet, you get interest from an interest bearing account.
Its not the charging of interest that is the problem, it is the high amount for high risk borrowers that is a problem. But, then the banks risk not getting their money back. Oh sure they can write off quite a bit in taxes but, there is still loss. Without charging interest the amount of money to loan will be less and less due to defaults and general business costs. A store is allowed to make a profit off a gallon of milk. Money is a product. I agree interest amount should be capped lower for any institution loaning money.

17

Try standing back from our society and imagine this: imagine we are living in a world where everyone has their plot of land which is productive such that everyone has all they need, housing, clothing, food, and in fact the farms are so productive that the people have plenty of free time to do whatever they like, possibly socilaising, possibility practicing arts/crafts etc. Now suppose that you have a neighbour whose cows have been hit by a disease and wiped out. The neighbour comes to you and tells you of his misfortune and asks if he can have one of your cows. You have cows to spare. You say yes — but only on condition that you get something in return, something that is of EVEN MORE value than the cow. That is fundamental usury and it is abhorrent. It is using other people’s misfortunes to your own advantage. It is not necessary. Just because we live in a society where such abhorrent behaviour is standard does not mean that it is not possible to live in a better way. Society can exist and thrive on GOOD behaviour.

18

No it would not. Because if your neighbor’s cows died from disease then yours will too. Your neighbor by ignoring the disease causes you loss. You now have to hire a veterinary doctor, pay for medication and expend a lot of extra effort. This neighbor starts bitching about what you charge him or her for that cow, you toss them out on their butt. But even better than that:
So you want everyone farming? Really?

19

By the use of usury, one creates the disease that kills his neighbor’s cow so that his own cows are more valuable for trade.

This is one issue that dragon has right. Usury depends upon the weakness and suffering of others and thus inspires the endless endeavor to keep them weak and wanting. In the end, the weakness of so many over takes life itself, and all lose everything.

And it need not be.

20

Really? A rancher can create a disease? This rancher would have to expend alot of money on lab equipment, education, chemicals etc, just to kill a few cows…
Do keep in mind James Dragon thinks we should all be farmers, there wouldn’t be a vet or lab equipment…
The first farmer was negligent. The first sick cow should have been isolated or put down and incinerated. Negligence causes this fairytale issue.