For or Against Usury

Login or register to post comments Last Post 18094 reads   120 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 41 through 50 (of 120 total)
  • Mon, Feb 01, 2010 - 04:18am

    #41
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1584

    count placeholder0

    Re: For or Against Usury

It is not capital production, but rather a casino.  As long as the house keeps throwing more chips on the table, the usury system works, people can get out of bondage.  But as soon as the house pulls their chips off the table or starts pulling yours off with higher interest rates, game over, people lose their houses.  It doesn’t matter how that system is tweaked.  Eventually people lose their houses because rather than declaring jubilee at that time for the greater interest of the people as all religions call for, our government works for the casino.

Strabes wouldn’t it be true that those people were in bondage and complete slavery the entire time because all of those chips would have been loaned to them at interest making it impossible for those people to get out of debt because as soon as time and interest kicked in on those borrowed chips the debt would have grown but the money supply (chips) would not have?

  • Mon, Feb 01, 2010 - 04:25am

    #42
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1584

    count placeholder0

    Re: For or Against Usury

Like I said, I think non-debt currency has some merits.  I just don’t think that it is the whole solution.

1) Do you really want a government bureaucrat to decide who should and should not get loans?

Goes211,

If they people have to borrow the money it’s debt money isn’t it?  Non-debt money is money that is created and spent into circulation without a debt or liability to anybody.  Gold and Silver under the 1792 coinage act is a very good example of debt free and liability free money.  A wealth based money.

  • Mon, Feb 01, 2010 - 04:41am

    #43
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1584

    count placeholder0

    Re: For or Against Usury

[quote=Thomas Hedin]

I think that we agree that banks currently make money through interest on money they created for free through loans.

Goes211,

Banks “make” money every time they issue a new loan.  The interest is never created in that process, only the principle.  Please correct me if I’m wrong but don’t you only get that which you borrow (principle) and you’re required to pay back the principle plus more than what was created in that process (interest)?

[/quote]

Thomas,

In that context when I said banks “make” money through interest, what  I meant was profit through interest.  I realize that banks “create” money by merely issuing a new loan.

  • Mon, Feb 01, 2010 - 04:51am

    #44
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1584

    count placeholder0

    Re: For or Against Usury

[quote=Thomas Hedin]

Like I said, I think non-debt currency has some merits.  I just don’t think that it is the whole solution.

1) Do you really want a government bureaucrat to decide who should and should not get loans?

Goes211,

If they people have to borrow the money it’s debt money isn’t it?  Non-debt money is money that is created and spent into circulation without a debt or liability to anybody.  Gold and Silver under the 1792 coinage act is a very good example of debt free and liability free money.  A wealth based money.

[/quote]

I don’t think I would have any serious problems with the 1792 coinage act ( other than how do we get from here to there Laughing) but I really don’t think that is what other are advocating.  My understanding was that they want a non-commodity backed, government issued fiat currency to replace the current debt based monetary system.

  • Mon, Feb 01, 2010 - 09:30am

    #45
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1584

    count placeholder0

    Re: For or Against Usury

[quote=Thomas]Strabes wouldn’t it be true that those people were in bondage and complete slavery the entire time because all of those chips would have been loaned to them at interest making it impossible for those people to get out of debt because as soon as time and interest kicked in on those borrowed chips the debt would have grown but the money supply (chips) would not have?[/quote]

excellent catch Thomas.  believe it or not I actually thought the same thing as I wrote it.  I debated whether to say “get out of bondage” or not because, as you point out, as soon as you’re stuck with the interest-bearing monopoly house’s chips, you’re technically in a form of bondage.  but I figured I’d go ahead and say it.  what I meant by getting out of bondage was that those who play the game well can collect enough chips from others to payoff their loans…by definition that means others will lose the game if no chips are added.  but given the way the Fed/banks manage the game, they steadily throw more chips on the table over time to cover the interest so all the people who are in the game early win, or payoff their loans, but it means the people living a few generations later, i.e. 2008+, will by definition lose. 

unfortunately…that’s all of us.

  • Mon, Feb 01, 2010 - 10:11am

    #46
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1584

    count placeholder0

    Re: For or Against Usury

 After reading all the responses, I’ve decided I’m of the opinion it is not the monetary system, nor interest that is the problem.  Everyone talks about how the money system is enslaving everyone, and I just don’t buy it. 🙂  I believe because money circulates through a system, it is quite possible to have interest in a non-FRB or a FRB banking system without having to endlessly expanded the money supply.  Also, if I look around there are many people who are not in debt and are not underwater at least personally with debt.   The problem is those who spend more than they can produce.  That goes for individuals, companies, or governments. However, we are all being enslaved because our government is taking on massive debt in our name.

I don’t believe there is a problem with taking on debt to acquire productive assets or to make large purchases as long as you have productive capacity to pay back the debt.  The problem we have is that we have individuals and governments spending far more than they can ever repay and purchasing things that are non-productive (ie. non-liquidating debt).  I believe this is the root of the problem, not the monetary system.  However, I do believe that if you have a hard currency and non-FRB then you can’t ever get into the current situation because access to capital that can’t be conjured out of thin air would not be available.

I also don’t believe any fiat currency will ever be stable.  It doesn’t matter if it is issued by the government or by another entity.  Without hard limits on expansion of the money supply (that is limited by physics not decree) it will always be debased for political reasons.

My understanding was that they want a non-commodity backed, government issued fiat currency to replace the current debt based monetary system.

I think you are right and I would argue that all this does is remove the middle man (the FED) it will result in exactly the same situation just with the government directly in charge of the money supply rather than the illusion we have now that the FED is independent.

  • Mon, Feb 01, 2010 - 11:22am

    #47
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1584

    count placeholder0

    Re: For or Against Usury

Strabes,

what I meant by getting out of bondage was that those who play the game well can collect enough chips from others to payoff their loans…

Except for close to 80 years the banking system has had a mortgage placed on 100% of the property in the usa, 100% of the time, and the people don’t even know it.  It’s become so true what Jackson said.  In time the banks and the corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until every here wakes up homeless on the lands their forefathers conqerued….

 

Ever since fractional reserve banking gained a complete monopoly over the creation of the meduim of exchange as interest bearing loans we have all been losing all the time, just not all at once.  Some people do in fact gain all the time in this system, just look to the top 1% stratum of society.  They continue to get richer and richer, while the rest of us just fight over who is going to be the next one knocked into poverty.  Eventually the simple laws of mathematics catch up and in time, we will (unless we really begin study and think about the sinister effects of interest) lose all of our property to the people who benifit from interest.  The only people who benifit from interest are the one who create the medium of exchange as interest bearing loans.  This system has got to go.

  • Mon, Feb 01, 2010 - 12:49pm

    #48
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1584

    count placeholder0

    Re: For or Against Usury

[quote=rhare]

 After reading all the responses, I’ve decided I’m of the opinion it is not the monetary system, nor interest that is the problem.  Everyone talks about how the money system is enslaving everyone, and I just don’t buy it. 🙂  I believe because money circulates through a system, it is quite possible to have interest in a non-FRB or a FRB banking system without having to endlessly expanded the money supply.  Also, if I look around there are many people who are not in debt and are not underwater at least personally with debt.   The problem is those who spend more than they can produce.  That goes for individuals, companies, or governments. However, we are all being enslaved because our government is taking on massive debt in our name.

I don’t believe there is a problem with taking on debt to acquire productive assets or to make large purchases as long as you have productive capacity to pay back the debt.  The problem we have is that we have individuals and governments spending far more than they can ever repay and purchasing things that are non-productive (ie. non-liquidating debt).  I believe this is the root of the problem, not the monetary system.  However, I do believe that if you have a hard currency and non-FRB then you can’t ever get into the current situation because access to capital that can’t be conjured out of thin air would not be available.

I also don’t believe any fiat currency will ever be stable.  It doesn’t matter if it is issued by the government or by another entity.  Without hard limits on expansion of the money supply (that is limited by physics not decree) it will always be debased for political reasons.

My understanding was that they want a non-commodity backed, government issued fiat currency to replace the current debt based monetary system.

I think you are right and I would argue that all this does is remove the middle man (the FED) it will result in exactly the same situation just with the government directly in charge of the money supply rather than the illusion we have now that the FED is independent.

[/quote]

I certainly agree with what you say about fiat money however I do feel that you are underestimating the inherent problems of our debt based money system.  Even in your simple example each of the $5 payments from the bank for bread would have been created though loans to middle men because the bank itself, does not eat.  These loans would need to come up with a total payment of $7.5 to pay back the bank.

I realiaze that because interest is nowhere near 50%, the problem is much more subtle than in your example.   Also a few defaults in the system can extingish enough debt that the remaining money in the system can now cover the outstanding obligations.  The system certainly can work but it looks a lot like a ponzi scheme where it needs to grow or it collapses back upon itself.

My criticism of debt based money is due to its inherent unfairness where wealth always seems to flow from those on the bottom to those on the top.  If this flow was toward briliant entrepreneur’s that were providing goods and services that everyone wanted, it would be acceptable to me.  Instead the wealth seems to flow to those that have the legal ability to create our means of exchange which just seems wrong to me.

  • Mon, Feb 01, 2010 - 03:30pm

    #49
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1584

    count placeholder0

    Re: For or Against Usury

Rhare.

I believe because money circulates through a system, it is quite possible to have interest in a non-FRB or a FRB banking system without having to endlessly expanded the money supply.

In a fraction reserve banking system only what we borrow is placed into circulation (I.E. the prinicple) but the principle plus the interest is required to be paid back.  As soon as time and interest kick in, the debt has grown but the money supply has not making it impossible for the debt collectively to be paid.

Also, if I look around there are many people who are not in debt and are not underwater at least personally with debt.

And this is an absolutely true statement.  You can personally have money without debt, BUT in order for you to have any money without debt someone somewhere in the system had to borrow it, and pay interest on it.  Some people say that isn’t a true statement what I just made but that is like saying that they have bananas in their house, and they don’t have a banana tree, therefor that proves that not all bananas come from trees…..It’s a sad fact but 100% of the money in our system is created by an extension of credit by a private commercial bank.  They extend credit when they make interest bearing loans.

The problem is those who spend more than they can produce.

 

When Congress suspended the free coinage of metals into money it became impossible for the people to produce their own money.  Now all money is borrowed into exsistance.  The big question is how can you produce your way out of a debt when production creates no money?

That goes for individuals, companies, or governments. However, we are all being enslaved because our government is taking on massive debt in our name.

And that’s true, but that is the only way money gets put into circulation.  The one good thing (I’m not saying this is a solution) about the government going into debt (government debt only makes up about 1/5th of the total debt) is that you and I can capture some money without having to go into debt personal that way we can have a way to capture some money to pay our interest.

I don’t believe there is a problem with taking on debt to acquire productive assets or to make large purchases as long as you have productive capacity to pay back the debt.

And I agree with you but currently we have no mechanism to get out of debt because all money is created as interest bearing loans.

The problem we have is that we have individuals and governments spending far more than they can ever repay and purchasing things that are non-productive (ie. non-liquidating debt).

I think by spending you mean borrowing.  There is a world of difference between spending and borrowing.  One must ask themselves how can we borrow ourselves out of this mess?  A:  We can’t.  We are going to have to put money into circulation that doens’t have to be borrowed into exsistance.

I believe this is the root of the problem, not the monetary system.

The monetary system is the very system that creates the unpayable debts in the first place because they hold a monopoly over the creattion of the meduim of exchange as interst bearing loans payable to themselves.

However, I do believe that if you have a hard currency and non-FRB then you can’t ever get into the current situation because access to capital that can’t be conjured out of thin air would not be available.

And you’re correct if you’re talking about the money that is earned into circulation.  A perfect example is money created under the 1792 coinage act.  100% of that money came into existance as a wealth based money with no debt at all.  This is the key concept that made gold and silver work.  It came into exsistance as a wealth with no debt to anyone and was owned by the very people who produced it.  What should happen is that we should apply those very principles to our current monetary system and have a wealth based monetary system designed to benifit the people who produce the money instead of what we have now where the money is produced by people who produce nothing (the banks) and the banks are the ones who receive the benifit of the money, not the people.

I also don’t believe any fiat currency will ever be stable.  It doesn’t matter if it is issued by the government or by another entity.  Without hard limits on expansion of the money supply (that is limited by physics not decree) it will always be debased for political reasons.

The fiat currency component in the money system has absolutely zero influence on the money supply because the fiat component is can only move into circulation by using check book entry to purchase the fiat money.  The problem does not reside in the fiat compent, the problem with the monetary system is that the actual creation of money always and only involves an extention of credit by private commercial banks.  The credit they extend is just a check book entry of an amount owed by the bank to the customer.  An liability they never have to make good on.

I think you are right and I would argue that all this does is remove the middle man (the FED) it will result in exactly the same situation just with the government directly in charge of the money supply rather than the illusion we have now that the FED is independent.

I personally could care less whether the money comes from the banking system, the government, or the people.  Any of the three COULD work and be sustainable.

BUT

We really need to start to think about the prinicples under which out monetary system functions.  We can either have a monetary system that is designed to bankrupt a country and transfer all of the real wealth to a very few elite at the top (as we have now) or we can start working to switch our monetary system to one that benifits and enriches the people returning prosperity, private ownership, and all the other benifits of being able to OWE your money instead of having to borrow the money and pay interest on it.

You’ve brought up a lot of really great points in your posting and I really enjoyed reading it.  I hope my follow up was enjoyable.

  • Mon, Feb 01, 2010 - 03:34pm

    #50
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1584

    count placeholder0

    Re: For or Against Usury

goes211,

Instead the wealth seems to flow to those that have the legal ability to create our means of exchange which just seems wrong to me.

And this is the sinister nature of interest that is not taught, or talked about, and is so widely pushed on to the people as a good thing.  If the people ever begin to understand the massive power of creating the meduim of exchange as interest bearing loans debt money we might be able to stop this type of theft.

I wish it could seem wrong to more people but they just don’t seem to care, or at least the bulk of them.

P.S.  I really like this particular sentance you wrote.  It’s cutting straight to the heart of the reason why these men have worked so hard to cover up exactly why they like fractional reserve lending so much.

Viewing 10 posts - 41 through 50 (of 120 total)

Login or Register to post comments