Print this post Print this post

On Usury

5,284 words

Usury does not mean high interest. It means any interest, however low, demanded for an unproductive loan. It is not only immoral but it is ultimately destructive of society. It has only been the rule of our commerce to take usury since the breakup of Europe following on the Reformation. Usury will destroy our society, but meanwhile there is no escape from it. We are coming near the end of its maleficent action, not through awaking to its evils but because it is reaching the end of its resources. The Great War loans, which are almost entirely usurious, have powerfully accelerated this process.

The modern world is organized on the principle that money of its nature breeds money. A sum of money lent has, according to our present scheme, a natural right to interest. That principle is false in economics as in morals. It ruined Rome, and it is bringing us to our end.

Supposing a man comes to you and says: “There is a field next to mine which is a very good building site; if I put up a good little house on it I shall be able to let that house at a net profit–all rates, taxes and repairs paid–of £100 a year. But I have no capital with which to build this house. The field will cost £50 and the house £950. Will you lend me £1,000, so that I can buy the field, put up the house, and enjoy this nice little income?” You would presumably answer, “Where do I come in? You get your £100 a year all right; but you only get it by my aid, and therefore I ought to share in the profits. Let us go fifty-fifty. You take £50 every year as your share for your knowledge of the opportunity and for your trouble, and hand me over the other £50. That will be five percent on my money, and I shall be content.”

This answer, granted that property is a moral right, is a perfectly moral proposition. The borrower accepting that proposition certainly has no grievance. For a long time [theoretically, forever] you could go on drawing five percent on the money you lent, with a conscience at ease.

Now let us suppose that man comes to you and says: “I know the case of a man in middle age who has been suddenly stricken with a terrible ailment. Medical aid costing £1,000 will save his life, but he will never be able to do any more work. He has an annuity of £100 a year to keep him alive after the operation and subsequent treatment. Will you lend the £1,000? It will be paid back to you on his death, for his life has been insured in a lump payment for the amount of £1,000.” You answer: “I will lend £1,000 to save his life, but I shall require of him half his annuity, that is £50 a year, for every year he may live henceforward; and he must scrape along as best he can on the remaining £50 of his annuity.” That answer would make you feel a cad if you have any susceptibilities left, and if you have not–having already become a cad through the action of what the poet has called “the soul’s long dues of hardening and decay”–it would be a caddish action all the same, though you might not be disturbed by it.

It seems therefore that there are conditions under which you may legitimately and morally lend £1,000 at five percent in perfect security of conscience, and others in which you cannot.

Now look at the matter from another angle.

When the American city of Boston was founded, three hundred years ago, a man in London proposing to emigrate thither left gold to the value of £1,000 with a London goldsmith, under a bond that the goldsmith might use the money until he or his heirs should demand it, but with the proviso that five percent on the capital should accrue at compound interest until it was withdrawn. The emigrant did not reappear. The goldsmith’s business developed, as so many of them did, into a sort of bank as the seventeenth century wore on. By the beginning of the eighteenth it was a bank in due form, and its successor today is part of one of the great banking concerns of our time. The original deposit has gone on “fructifying,” as the phrase goes, with the liability piling up, but no one claiming it.

At last, in this year 1931, an heir turns up and proves his title. The capital sum into which this modest investment of a thousand pounds at five percent has grown is to be paid over to him under an order of the court. Do you know how much it will come to?–More than twice the annual revenue of the United States today.

Let us take a less fantastic example, and perhaps it will be more convincing. Supposing a man to have lent £10,000 on mortgage at six percent upon an English gentleman’s estate at the beginning of the American War of Independence, in 1776: the said estate to pay £600 a year to the lender. The debt is not pressed. The embarrassed gentleman is allowed to add to the principal the annual payments due, so that the whole sums up at the rate of six percent compound interest.

That is not at all an impossible supposition. Do you know what the mortgage-holder could demand of that estate today? Nearly five million pounds a year!

Neither of these examples could arise in practice because the law forbids such prolonged accumulation, but the very fact that the law has been compelled to do so, is proof that there is something wrong with the current notion everywhere acted upon, that money “earns” a certain rate of interest and has a moral right to it without regard to the way in which the capital is employed.

For what is common to all these illustrations is the patent fact that interest on a loan may, under some circumstances of time or extent, be a demand for an impossible tribute. It may under some circumstances be a tribute which is not morally due, because it does not represent an extra production of wealth due to the original investment. It is under some circumstances a demand for wealth which is not connected with the produce of the original investment, and the payment of which is therefore not a payment of part profit, but a payment to be made, if possible, out of whatever other wealth the debtor can obtain; and a tribute which, beyond a certain point, cannot even be paid at all, because the wherewithal to pay it is not present in society.

What are those circumstances? What are the conditions distinguishing a demand for payment of interest which is legitimate in morals from a demand which is illegitimate?

The distinction lies between a demand for part of the product of a productive loan, which is moral, and the immoral demand for either (1) interest on an unproductive loan, or (2) interest greater than the annual increment in real wealth which a productive loan creates. Such a demand “wears down”–“eats up”–“drains dry” the wealth of the borrower, and that is why it is called Usury. A derivation inaccurate in philology, but sound in morals, rightly connects “usura” “usury,” with the idea of destroying, “using up,” rather than with the original idea of “usus,” “a use.”

Usury, then, is a claiming of interest upon an unproductive loan, or of interest greater than the real increment produced by a productive loan. It is the claiming of something to which the lender has no right, as though I should say: “Pay me ten sacks of wheat a year for the rent of these fields” after the fields had been swallowed up by the sea, or after they had fallen to producing annually much less than ten sacks of wheat.

I must here reluctantly introduce a colloquial meaning of the word “Usury” which confuses thought. People talk of “usurious interest” meaning very high interest. It is obvious how the confusion arose. Very high interest is commonly greater than the real wealth produced even by a productive loan, and to demand it is, in effect, to demand more than the produce of the original loan; but there is nothing in the rate of interest per se which renders such interest usurious. You may demand one hundred percent on a loan and be well within your moral rights.

For instance, a small claim which was producing 500 ounces of gold a year has a sudden opportunity for producing 200 times as much, 100,000 ounces, if capital the equivalent of only 1,000 ounces can be obtained for development. The lender of that new capital is under no moral obligation to give all the vastly increased profits as a present to the borrower. He can legitimately claim his portion; he might well ask for half the new produce, that is 50,000 ounces per annum, 500 percent on his loan, for that very high interest would only come to half the new wealth produced. To ask for that 500 percent would not be an exaction of tribute from wealth that was not present, nor for wealth that was not created by the capital invested.

Strictly speaking, then, usury has nothing to do with the amount of interest demanded, but with the point whether there is or is not produced by the capital invested an increment at least equal to the tribute demanded.

If authority is asked for so obvious a position in morals it may be found in every great moral system sanctioned by the religious and permanent social philosophies adopted by men. Aristotle[1] forbids it, St. Thomas forbids it. The Mohammedan system of ethics condemns it.[2] In particular we have the luminous decision of the Fourth Lateran Council.

So far, so good. Next let us note the very interesting development of modern times since the break-up of our common European moral and religious system at the Reformation. After that disaster usury gradually became admitted. It grew to be a general practice sanctioned by the laws, and the payment of it enforced by the civil magistrate. In England it was under the reign of Cecil, in the year 1571, that interest, though limited to ten percent, became legal without regard to the use made of the loan. The birth year of what may be called “Indiscriminate Usury” is 1609, when, under Calvinism, the Bank of Amsterdam started on its great career of stimulating fortunate capacity and ruining the unfortunate. In general the governments which broke away from the unity of Christendom one after the other introduced legalized usury, and thus got a start over the conservative nations which struggled to maintain the old moral code. To the new moral, or rather immoral, ideas thus introduced we owe the rapid development of banking in the “reformed” nations, the financial hold they acquired and maintained for three centuries. Everyone at last fell into line, and today Usury works side by side with legitimate profit, and, confused with it, has become universal throughout what used to be Christian civilization. It is taken for granted that every loan shall bear interest, without inquiring whether it be productive or unproductive. The whole financial side of our civilization is still based on that false conception.

A very interesting essay might be written upon the ultimate fruits of such a conception in our own time. Were it ever written a good title for it would be, “The End of the Reign of Usury.” For it is becoming pretty clear that the inherent vice of the system under which long ago the Roman Imperial social scheme broke down is beginning to break down our own international financial affairs. With this difference, however: that they broke down from private usury, we from public.

But that is by the way; to return to our muttons. Usury being a demand for money that is not there, Usury being therefore, when once it is universally admitted, at first a machine for ultimate draining of all wealth into the hands of lenders and for reducing the rest of the community to economic servitude at last; Usury being at last a system which must break down of its own weight–when the demand made is greater than all productivity can meet–why, it may be asked, has it been practiced with success for so long? Why does it seem to be at the root of so vast a progress in production throughout the world?

That it has been in use successfully for all these generations, ever since it was solidly established in general practice during the seventeenth century, no one can deny. Nor can anyone deny that it has accompanied the great modern expansion in production. And here arises one of those apparent contradictions between a plain mathematical truth and the results of its negation in practice, of which experience is full. Persuaded by such appearances, most men abandon the abstract consideration and are content with the practical result. It is on this account that even so late in the day as this the mere mention of the word “Usury” and a discussion of its ethics has about it the savor of something ridiculous.

Not so long ago everyone would have told you that to adopt the attitude I am adopting here was to write oneself down a crank. The conclusions to which every clear mind must come in the matter were not even considered, but brushed aside as imperfect notions proper to early and uncritical ages when men had not thought out economics or any other science.

The increasing, though still small number of educated men who are growing suspicious of such contempt for the immemorial past and for the moral traditions of Christendom will give these objections less weight than they were given a generation ago; but they still have overwhelming weight with the general. If you say today, “Usury is wrong,” or even, “Usury is dangerous,” or even no more than, “Usury must in the long run break down,” all but a very few will, even today, refuse to follow this discussion of the matter. Most of the careless and all the foolish will put you into the company of those who think the earth is flat.

The error is theirs, not ours; yet their error has, as I have said, solid practical backing; for Usury has worked successfully. Productivity has been vastly increased since Usury took root. The last three hundred years have been centuries of immense expansion, and the leaders of it have been precisely those who first threw Christian morals overboard.

What is the explanation? The explanation lies in three considerations:
First, when Usury is universally permitted and enforced, it becomes only part of a general activity for the accumulation of capital with the object of investment. In the days when Usury was illegal and punished, the accumulation of capital for investment was hampered. Incidentally, those days were also days in which the production of wealth upon an increasing scale was not regarded as the end of man. But at any rate, from the purely economic point of view, the ceasing to inquire how capital would be used, the laying it down as a rule that all capital had a right to interest, no matter how it was invested, obviously tended to make accumulation more rapid, and incidentally, to make men keener to ferret out opportunities for productive as well as for unproductive lending.

With that, of course, though from other causes, went the increase of men’s powers over nature, the curve of which rose more and more steeply, and perhaps is still rising–though there are signs of fatigue and of interference with that process from causes other than economic, in spite of the rapid accumulation of further scientific knowledge and of its economic application.

This increase in our powers over nature is the second reason why the false action of Usury has been masked for so long. The economic evil of Usury stimulated and accompanied great economic advantage of accumulation for Production, and this legitimate use of money had its opportunity given it by a flood of geographical discovery and new achievements in Physical Science.

The third reason why Usury has not yet worked out its full ill effect is that it has long been automatically checked by repeated breakdowns which wiped out usurious claims. Capital unproductively lent failed to receive its tribute and had to be written off. It is true that Usury on such capital is commonly the last thing to be written off;[3] but written off it is continually, and this intermittent pruning of the unearned tribute has prevented the real character of that tribute from appearing in its full force.

The nineteenth century in particular, and still more the beginning of the twentieth century, is crowded with examples of these breakdowns–myriads of them. Money is invested in a particular enterprise. The enterprise does not fulfill expectations. Though the money no longer earns legitimate interest, debentures are raised, the guaranteed interest on which is strictly Usury. For some time this interest is paid, but over and over again you find that at last even the debenture interest cannot be paid. The whole concern lapses, and the usurious tribute can no longer be exacted. You may see the process at work today in many departments of the textile industry. The mill gets into difficulties; a loan is raised from the bank; interest is promised on the loan, though there is no surplus wealth over and above the cost of production. The interest is met from outside sources; but the process cannot go on forever, and there comes a time when the bank has to write the loan off as a bad debt. As the bank is making money out of other successful and profitable investments it continues to flourish, it continues to make money, its total income increases, and that part which it has lost through the breakdown of Usury is hidden in the general productive scheme; the usurious character of certain receipts is not distinguished from the legitimate character of the majority. But whenever a society shows signs of economic decay, the real nature of Usury, thus submerged and hidden in prosperous times, necessarily appears above the surface.

Mr. Orage many years ago, writing in his paper, The New Age, gave in this connection one of the numerous vivid illustrations of the affair, with that genius of his for exposition which ought to have made him famous. He took the example of an oasis of date-palms in the desert, the water-supply of which is got at by very primitive means. There comes a financier who lends money for development. The capital is productively used; artesian wells are sunk; the water-supply is largely increased; a better organization of the date-cultivation is begun; the produce of the oasis rapidly grows from year to year; the profits legitimately demanded by the financier are a part of the total extra annual wealth, the presence of which has been due to his enterprise. All are well-to-do; everything flourishes.

Then, whether through fatigue, or through war or pestilence, or variations in the external market, or some calamity of climate, things begin to go wrong. The annual wealth produced by the oasis declines. But the interest on the money lent must still be paid. As the cultivators get more and more embarrassed they borrow in order to pay that interest, and there comes a time of “overlap,” during which, paradoxically enough, the banker appears to be more and more prosperous, though the community which supplies him is getting less and less so. But it is mere arithmetic that the process must come to an end. There will arrive a moment after which the cultivator can no longer find the money to pay the interest, which has long since ceased to be morally due. Mere coercion under an all-powerful police system has got the last penny out of him. The “overlap” between real prosperity and apparent–merely financial or paper–prosperity ceases; and the temporary wealth enjoyed by the lender comes to an end, as had previously come to an end the real prosperity of the borrower.

In other words, great banking prosperity in any particular period may be, and commonly is, the proof of all-round prosperity in that period; but it is not necessarily nor always so. The one is not an inevitable adjunct of the other.

To these general conclusions there is another objection which anyone reasonably well acquainted with history will at once make:

“You tell us” [says the objector] “that in other times when the Faith was universally held–times which you perhaps think healthier, but which were certainly much less wealthy and had to deal with, not only a simpler, but a much smaller population–Usury was forbidden. That is quite true. But when you go on to argue that there is therefore an essential difference between that time and our time, or rather the recent past which you call ‘the reign of Usury,’ a different ethic prevailing now from what prevailed then, you are wrong. You are confusing that which is forbidden with that which is not done. It is true that the moral code of Christendom in Catholic times forbade Usury and punished it; even as late as the Provinciales of Pascal men felt moral indignation against Usury, and right on to the end of the eighteenth century the punishment for Usury continued to play a part in the courts of justice and appeared in the codes of law wherever the Church had power. But in point of fact Usury has always existed, because it always must. It is impossible to draw the line between the productive and the unproductive loan. The money which I lend a sick man may so put him to rights as to make him productive again, and may therefore be regarded as indirectly a productive loan, though unproductive in original intention. The money borrowed by a spendthrift for his pleasures may, on his death, immediately after, before he has had time to waste it, pass to a thrifty heir who invests it productively. Such considerations have always worked strongly upon men’s minds. That is why you find Usury plentifully existing in times and societies where it was morally condemned.

“Further, even were it possible to draw an exact line between the productive and the unproductive loan, there are all sorts of ways of evading the prohibition to take interest upon an unproductive one: to evade the duty of discovering whether the loan be productive or no. For instance, the Catholic governments, quite as much as the Protestant, issued what the French called ‘Rentes’–promises made by government to pay annual incomes. Henry IV of France, after his conversion, was especially active in this form of borrowing. Philip II of Spain, the very champion of Catholicism, sank up to his neck in embarrassment due to borrowing at high interest–borrowing, by a pretty irony, from the very people who were destroying his revenue. A government going to war–that is, about to spend money in an activity commonly unproductive–begged financiers to buy of it annual claims upon the revenue; and there is no difference at all between that and the modern habit of issuing a government loan. Then there was the obvious method of signing a bond for money and receiving less than the sum mentioned in the bond. Thomas Cromwell, of pious memory, was a zealot in this practice, at a time when the full Catholic morals about Usury were still taken for granted. Much earlier, in the true Middle Ages, princes were perpetually borrowing for their wars–principally from the newly arisen Italian banking system; and earlier still, when Usury was the exceptional, but chartered and legal privilege of the Jews and a source of immense revenue to the Christian princes under whom they lived, the practice was openly admitted. Usury therefore has always gone on in human society. It always will go on; discussions upon it are academic and futile.”

To this I answer that plain reasoning upon practical matters is never futile. If I say that an over-consumption of alcohol is bad for the human frame, especially in age, it is no answer to give me examples of topers who have to ninety. The evil effect of over-drinking is there, demonstrable and, to any honest mind, unquestioned. It is a mere question of experiment and experience and the use of reason applied to the same. Where true conclusions are apparently contradicted by experience they are so contradicted by other forces which do not make the truth any the less true.

So with this truth about Usury. As long as its impoverishing effects are masked or counter-balanced by stronger forces at work, they are neglected. But they are in existence all the same, and always active. To know that a truth is there, even when it is hidden, is of great practical use; such knowledge is a thing to be kept in reserve for action when the critical hour comes in which it must be applied.

Next it should be pointed out that there is all the difference in the world between a system in which an immoral principle is admitted and one in which, though the immorality is practiced, the principle is denied. There is, and presumably always will be, plenty of adultery, murder, swindling, and the rest, present in society; but the society in which the rights of property are admitted, in which marriage is sacred and to which the taking of human life is abhorrent, is very different from one where the sexes are promiscuous, or where Communism prevails, or where killing for private revenge or whim is an accepted pastime. To murder a bore, to run off with your neighbor’s wife, even to pick a man’s pocket, are still in our society abnormalities: abnormalities which we old-fashioned people ascribe to the Fall of Man, but which the most exuberant Pelagian will at least not deny to take place. There is all the difference in the world between a society in which such lapses continue, or are even tolerated, and one in which they are called good.

Man stands on two legs; but he can lean on one or on the other. Thus society in the department of law must insist both upon justice and upon order; and undoubtedly in any civilized society justice tends to be sacrificed to order. But there is all the difference in the world between the atmosphere and character of a society in which injustice is held more abominable than disorder and one in which disorder is held more abominable than injustice. Two parts of one chemical element to four parts of another will give you a certain product. Change the proportions, and quite a different product appears. A society in which Usury, though practiced, is held immoral is quite a different thing from a society where Usury is held to be moral. A society in which the lender assumes it to be his moral duty to examine the object of a loan before he considers its profit to himself is different from a society in which he is not expected to do so. A world in which interest upon the unprofitable loan is detested and the Usurer is a villain is quite another society from one in which men have ceased to ask whether a loan be profitable or unprofitable; and this again is a different society from one such as ours, where interest on any loan is demanded as a sort of sacred moral right with which the productivity or lack of productivity of the loan has nothing to do.

Well, then, since to every evil there should be a remedy, what should we say about Usury today? Since I am boasting that this discussion is practical, what about practice?

Let us suppose our opponent convinced; let him make reply: “I agree that Usury is an evil. What is more, I am inclined to agree that we are beginning to feel its evil effects throughout the world today at long last–principally through the enormous example of the great war loans. What then are we to do about it all?”

To this I answer in my turn that nothing immediate can be done. You cannot pull out a vital part of any existing social structure. The whole world today reposes upon banking, the whole system of investment renders inquiry about the productive or unproductive quality of an investment normally impossible.

There are especial private cases where you can judge the distinction clearly, and in those cases good men tend to act upon it, for the human conscience is at work all the time, even in the most corrupt and complex of societies. But in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand the distinction is impossible. A man is at pains to save. He must use his savings under a system where interest without examination is normal and all the infinite details of a world-wide system of production, distribution, and exchange have so long been based on the acceptation of Usury–as well as on the much larger calculation of legitimate profit–that the two can no more be divided in practice today than can the mixed colors in a dyer’s vat. If I go off for six months and leave money on deposit at my bank I can hardly ask what the bank is going to do with the money; and if I did they could not tell me. No one could say how much of it goes to feeding beasts on a fur farm in Canada; how much to a young man who is getting an overdraft on his securities and spending it in riotous living; how much to the development of a useful mine in the Andes. What sane man would hesitate to put his regular little self-denials into savings certificates, or his modest £1000 into a War Loan–that crying instance of Usury? The system must go on till we break, and even the word “break” is inaccurate. If history is any guide, the true word should rather be “decay.” Pleasing thought.

I did well to call this book Essays of a Catholic and not Catholic Essays. For if it became a matter of Catholic discipline that men should not today touch that unclean thing, the interest-bearing unproductive loan, discipline would stand self-condemned. The ecclesiastical order could not be obeyed. If by such an analysis as I am here engaged in I were to involve any of my fellow Catholics in the peculiar conclusions reached, I should be doing a very bad turn, not only to the common sense of my fellows, but to their sense of humor as well. Nevertheless, as the scent manufacturer has it, “Un jour viendra,”—–“A day will come.”

Notes

1. When I was first stammering out my elements as a boy at Oxford, a learned professor assured us in his lecture that the text of Aristotle must have become corrupt, because he could never have said so silly a thing as to call usury wrong. What St. Thomas called it I will wager he never knew.

2. I found in Tunis three years ago that the Mohammedan olive planter wanting to raise a loan for the development of his estate could not get the money from his fellow Mohammedans, but had to borrow from Europeans.

3. Witness the continued interest still paid on bank overdrafts by our failing industries. Another excellent example of the writing off of usurious interest is the scaling down of the French and Italian debts to America.

Source: http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/belloc2-2.htm

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

16 Comments

  1. Jj
    Posted October 26, 2011 at 6:53 am | Permalink

    Another element to usury: when a society is growing it’s negative effects are hidden. However all societies level off, growth is no longer needed. This is in many ways where the modern democracies arrived mid century. It is here where interest begins to devour the wealth; no more loans to pay for the interest of previous loans. This was the reason for mass immigration. To artificially spur growth.

  2. Richard Ricardo
    Posted October 26, 2011 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    I am surprised, pleasantly, to see this here. Belloc has a way of advancing unpopular opinions in a way that makes them seem obviously true. I don’t know if he is right about usury, but I don’t think it can be denied, and people appear to waking up to this now, that there is something is very wrong with our economy. Nor can it be denied that our economy is based on usury.
    I remember thinking during the boom times that our entire economy was predicated on the assumption that there will be more wealth tomorrow than there is today. Knowing that this could not go on forever, I wondered what would happen when we reached the end of the road. It looks like I am getting my answer now.

  3. Posted October 26, 2011 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    This was the reason for mass immigration. To artificially spur growth.

    NO:
    http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/review-AR.html

  4. Andrew
    Posted October 26, 2011 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    Interest levied on illusory or fraudulent loans – that is to say, false money, issued by Jewish central bankers from nothing, representing no actual wealth or capital, “loaned” to governments, and then imposed by fiat on their tax slaves – is, by far, more lethal, immoral, and therefore usurious than the kind on which Belloc focuses herewith.

  5. Stronza
    Posted October 26, 2011 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    I recall reading in a book about libertarianism that “$5 today is worth more (to the borrower) than $5 tomorrow”. And that is what the charging of interest is all about. If you would instead be prepared to wait and save your money [and suffer through the waiting], until you have the amount you wanted to get from the lender, then you’ll have the money you need, and won’t have to borrow and won’t need to (rightfully) pay interest. The interest charge is thus an expression of appreciation for being spared the suffering involved in having to wait & save. So their argument goes and I wouldn’t know how to refute it. At least if the borrowing of money and charging of interest stays at this low level I wouldn’t.

    And isn’t the whole anti-usury outlook based on the inherent wrongness of fractional reserve banking?

  6. Tabu LaRaza
    Posted October 26, 2011 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

    And isn’t the whole anti-usury outlook based on the inherent wrongness of fractional reserve banking? It should be but isn’t. Historically usury was the charging any interest. It seems that some deliberately confuse fractional with interest per se. The problem is loans from nothing, not interest. An ounce of gold can be loaned without creating money. Actual goods can be loaned as credit. A tractor dealer can price a tractor at $20k cash, or say $5k/yr over 5 years. The loan was the physical tractor- loans don’t have to be money.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted October 26, 2011 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

      Usury is not an issue of fractional reserve banking or fiat currency. It can and did exist in societies where these did not exist.

      Usury is not interest per se. It is not even high interest per se. Usury is, instead, any loan that becomes ruinous because it can never be discharged, whether because of declining production, misfortunes, currency deflation, or other causes. A mortgage that is “under water” is a usurious loan. One can make usurious loans less likely by keeping interest rates low. One can also provide exits from them like bankruptcy, loan repudiation, protections from asset forfeiture, and the like. The best way to avoid usury, though, is to peg the return on the loan not to a percentage of the original amount (interest) but instead to the return from the investment (dividends), making banks in effect investors who have a stake in the continued profitability of the company, rather than people who must be paid no matter what the fortunes of the borrower, even at the expense of his ruin.

    • Henry
      Posted October 27, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

      ”The problem is loans from nothing, not interest. An ounce of gold can be loaned without creating money.”

      And so can a dollar bill.

      These are some of the fallacies (of the Pharisees) that Ron Paul likes to peddle.

      You say, interest is not the problem, so where do you think the interest comes from?

      The idea that lending at interest does not harm society is fallacious because the lender issues only the principle, not the interest, and the effect of this arrangement is that the borrower becomes the unwitting agent of the lender, and must draw the agreed interest from his fellow citizens; thereby stripping society of its wealth.

      The argument for the right of the lender to charge interest on a loan and demand security against loss or foreclosure is this:

      Because the lender is denied the use of his own property for the period of the loan: and because there is a risk to the lender that his property might not be returned: he is entitled to demand a financial income as interest in its use and also a ‘pledge’ of security against its loss – either whole or in part – due to any failure by the borrower to complete the repayment(s) as agreed.

      But there is great danger here: Because the lender is being given security from any risk that arises, the lender might be tempted to encourage the practise of reckless borrowing and seek to prey upon those people and communities who are most desperate and in need.

      Leaving aside the issue of bank created credit for a moment, let’s have a look at the effect of 1:1 loans at interest, and as Ron Paul, who is influenced by Spinoza and the earlier Scholastics, is intent on raising interest rates to the levels of the pre-banking era let’s use the following as an example.

      Example:

      Imagine a town in medieval England. The combined wealth of the town is £10,000 in hard cash. The majority of this money is with the town’s elite and mostly stays there. However, the majority of the people have ambitions to better themselves, but of course they lack the financial means to realise their ambitions.

      One day, into this town comes a money lender called Ron Paul: a sharp businessman who spends his life going from place to place offering to lend real HONEST money at interest.

      Mr Paul makes £1.000 available to any person or group of people who wish to borrow at a rate of 60% interest, which was not uncommon back in the day.

      See Here http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=58&letter=U&search=interest#ixzz0SV slFnSo

      The Libertarian Ron Paul’s belief is that the input of this money is good for the town’s economy because his cash injection has raised the money in the town by 10% – as £10,000 becomes £11,000 – However, only the principle of £1000 has been produced and when it leaves the town and goes back to Mr Paul, it must carry with it interest amounting to £600, a sum of money which can only come from the people of the town.

      Mr Paul, having found the money in the town to be £10,000, will take his 60% bite, and leave the town £600 poorer at £9,400 – If he cannot be repaid with cash then he will take the borrowers’ property, or perhaps future incomes, crops and harvests.

      The wealth of the town has now fallen and money become scarcer, so the people beg Ron Paul to stay as they fear they’re now in even more need of his services.

      Ron who has a personal fortune of £20,000 agrees to their request, and as a gesture to his new neighbours, he makes good their economy by restoring the £600 of interest taken, and then matches their £10,000 by making another £10,000 available at the new friendly rate of 7%.

      In effect he sets up a town bank, but not a fractional reserve bank, instead this a Ron Paul bank with a 100% reserve of £10,000 – Oh happy day!

      Ron Paul is not the type of banker who prints money with nothing behind it, for he has a 100% reserve, but let’s see the real effect of interest upon a community regardless of whether interest bearing credit is backed, or not.

      There is now £20,000 circulating in the town which gives a corresponding debt-to-money ratio of 50%.

      The average rate of interest charged is 7% of 10,000 = £700.

      At this rate the money circulating will fall by 7% until at some point there will be no money left to pay the interest.

      To disguise this the bank of Ron Paul must cover the interest, and therefore, will issue new money equal to the interest it receives; that being 7% of half the existing money, which amounts to a 3.5% increase in the sum of money; and this represents the newly acquired rate of inflation – Oh lucky people!

      Remember Ron Paul is not just printing money with nothing behind it, he backs his money with a 100% reserve: and so each time he receives an interest payment of £700 he is able to issue another £700 (steady inflation of 3.5%) until eventually, at some point between year 28 and 29 he will have captured all of the towns money, while they, his trusting neighbours are left holding nothing but the equivalent of that amount in debt.

      The Bank of Ron Paul will own the people just as the fractional reserve banks own the people simply because it was able to lend money at interest.

      Paper money isn’t the problem, the problem is the interest.

  7. Jaego Scorzne
    Posted October 26, 2011 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    Another way to put it: money has to be kept close to the physical world – real goods and services. But at the same time – it is not real or “alive” in itself. It can’t be allowed to reproduce itself thru interest. As Peter Kreeft of Boston College says, our society doesn’t like babies but loves the idea of money reproducing itself without limit. Incredibly perverse.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted October 26, 2011 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

      THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

      Jaego Scorzne in blockquote:

      Another way to put it: money has to be kept close to the physical world – real goods and services. But at the same time – it is not real or “alive” in itself. It can’t be allowed to reproduce itself thru interest. As Peter Kreeft of Boston College says, our society doesn’t like babies but loves the idea of money reproducing itself without limit. Incredibly perverse.

      De facto, it just might be that money is becoming less relevant to its purpose as an intermediary for the exchange of goods and services. Consider that barter, done electronically, accomplishes the same basic goal – consider ebay, for example, craigslist, for a better example, and the freecycle section of craigslist, best of all.

      That is the economy functioning at the level of the physical economy, a lot closer to ground level, where we have some semblance of control over it. Thus, without a need for “currency,” then inorganic usury becomes impossible.

      What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

  8. Tabu LaRaza
    Posted October 27, 2011 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    Usury is not interest per se. It is not even high interest per se Dr. Greg Johnson

    u·su·rer (yzhr-r)
    n.
    One who lends money at interest, especially at an exorbitant or unlawfully high rate

    Usury Definition

    The definition of usury has changed over time. In the past, the meaning of usury was interchangeable with the meaning of interest. Any type of interest charged was the exact same as usury (i.e. fees had to be paid to “use” money). However, this usury definition has morphed over the years to now arrive at the modern day definition of usury which is essentially that usury is an excessive or unlawful rate of interest.

    Definition of USURY
    1
    archaic : interest
    2
    : the lending of money with an interest charge for its use; especially : the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates

    These three are typical.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted October 27, 2011 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

      I think your problem here is that you need to read the article, not just the title.

  9. Sandy
    Posted October 27, 2011 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    If I read Hoffman’s revisionist History(Issue No 55 Jan-Feb 2011) correctly modern usury was introduced in the Roman Catholic Church withthe rise of a Catholic school of philosophy known as nominaliam. John Calvin and Martin Luther were born during the time of this debate in the church where the followers of Thomas Aquinas affirmed the biblical and pastristic ban on usury verses those who wanted usury which seemed to be led by Prof Conrad Summenhart and the Fugger bank. Fugger was the patron of the famous Catholic theologian Johannes Eck and Summenhart was Luther’s professor.
    Just as the Anglicans claim that church and state were founded with Moses and Aaron and cannot be separated nothing really has changed since then. And me being the same old self too can’t find my reference for that claim.

  10. Stronza
    Posted October 27, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for your comments but I know that F.R. banking and the charging of interest is not the same thing. I meant to say that the obvious criminality of F.R. banking has led us to take a look at the whole business of usury (charging of interest) in general.

    Anybody want to take on the libertarian theorists’ argument that charging interest is justified because $5 today is worth more to the borrower than $5 tomorrow? I seem unable to get around this claim.

    In a better world, do you anti-usury folk believe that a simple deal made between two individuals should be outlawed, or merely frowned on so that it doesn’t end up with VISA charging you 20% on your credit card?

  11. Sandy
    Posted October 28, 2011 at 12:01 am | Permalink

    As far as I know Federal reserve notes are unbacked and charged out at interest but coins are made by the Mint have some value and are not charged out at interest. Regardless over the controversy of whether the Federal reserve is private or not the US Mint is a government agency and is part of the Department of the Treasury. There are said to be slightly over $1 billion of them sitting in bank vaults and more being minted.
    While we can’t change the usury Federal Reserve system we can, by using more coins, cut down on their take. And if all the electronic money does go poof then the jam jar of coins in the top drawer will be worth something.

    • Greg Paulson
      Posted October 29, 2011 at 10:42 am | Permalink

      I’m more of the belief that if things go “poof” coins, paper money, electronic money etc. will be practically worthless compared to the things people would actually want to buy with them: food, guns, ammo, clean water, shelter, alcohol, seeds, farming equipment, cattle/farm animals, and so on. Of course, gold and coins would be more valuable than electronic money since it is actually tangible, but I don’t hold “precious metals” in all that high of an esteem personally.

      On a different note, usury, as defined in the article above is immoral in my opinion. Just as fractional reserve banking is. They are not the same thing but similar in the immoral assumption that money should create more money devoid of any actual production. It is no surprise the same tribe who has historically practiced usury also started fractional reserve and central banking.

One Trackback

  • By Usury: Hillaire Belloc - Stormfront on October 26, 2011 at 6:23 am

    […] On Usury | Counter-Currents Publishing Usury does not mean high interest. It means any interest, however low, demanded for an […]

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    The Wagnerian Drama

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance