Quotes on Usury
A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century by Barbara W. Tuchman
“In economic man, the lay spirit did not challenge the church, functioned in essential contradiction. Capitalist enterprise, although it held by now a commanding place, violated by its nature, the Christian attitude towards commerce, which was one of active antagonism. It held that money was evil, that according to Saint Augustine “business is in itself and evil, “that profit beyond a minimum necessary to support. The dealer was Everest, that to make money out of money by charging interest on a loan was the sin of Usery, that buying goods wholesale and selling them unchanged at a higher retail price was immoral and condemned by Cannan law, that, in short, Saint Jerome‘s victim was final: “a man who is a merchant can sell them if ever please God.” (A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century by Barbara W. Tuchman p 39).
“No economic activity was more reprehensible than the investment and lending at interest of money; it was the basis for the rise of Western capitalist economy, and the building a private fortunes – and it was based on the sin of us. Nothing so vexed, medieval, thinking, nothing so baffled and eluded settlement, nothing was so great a tangle of ear reconcilable as the theory of Usery. society needed money lending Christian doctrine forbid it. That was the basic economy, but the doctrine was so elastic that “even wisemen “were unsure of its provisions. For practical purposes, usury was considered to be not the charging of interest, per se, but charging at a higher rate and was decent. This was left to the Jews as the necessary, dirty work of society, and if they had not been available, they would have had to be invented. While theologians and canonist argued endlessly and tried mainly decide whether 10, 12.5, 15, or 20% was decent, the bankers went on lending and investing at whatever rates the situation would bear.” (A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century by Barbara W. Tuchman p 40).
A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples by Kevin MacDonald
“There was a concerted effort by the church to prevent resources from being drained from the Christian community via Jewish moneylending to Christians beginning in 1206 under the often reluctant King Philip the second, there was increasing regulation of Jewish money lending as a result of “a continuous chorus of criticism “ Emanating from the church and ultimately governmental authority. The fourth and council complained that “the more Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time, they exhausted the resources of the Christians”. The council compelled secular powers to end Jewish usury, and Christians were to be excommunicated if they continue to engage in commercial dealings with Jews until this occurred. “Radical “Christian thinkers rejected the idea that Jewish religious law allowed lending at interest to Christians and Jews, in turn, defended the practice as conforming to their religious law. A major concern was the indebtedness of the Christian lower classes, and the potential for exploitation of Christians hired as servants by wealthy Jews, but there was also concern to prevent the property of wealthy individuals from falling into Jewish hands.” (A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples by Kevin MacDonald) p 374-375
//
“ The intense popular resentment of moneylending (by Jews or by Christians) during this period was… rational in the sense that few individuals could hope to profit by taking a loan at the interest rates common in the Medieval Period. Interest rates in northern France were 65% and compounded until 1206, when the rate was kept at 43% and compounding was made illegal. Moreover, both compounding and rates higher than the legal limit continued even after attempts to abolish these practices. The great majority of the loans were not for investment in business, but rather for living expenses in a society that hovered near the subsistence level. Jewish communities tended to prosper at these rates of interest , but the rates must be understood as including taxes by authorities who use Jewish moneylending as a source of revenue. Moneylenders themselves viewed their occupation as extremely lucrative, compared to artisanry or agricultural.
Interest rates of this magnitude, therefore resulted in a net flow of resources out of the gentile community into the Jewish community with no compensating increase in economic activity within the gentile community. The opposition of the Church during this period to usurious moneylending was thus rational in the sense that the eradication of moneylending rates typical in the Medieval period Would benefit the gentile community as a whole. The medieval Church, like traditional Judaism, must be understood as a collectivist, exclusionary entity with a strong sense of Christian group interest. (Thus, the common medieval metaphor for Society is a body in which the Church is the head and eyes, the nobility, the hands and arms, and the peasantry the legs and feet). Like traditional Judaism, this group conceptualization was one in which there was harmony of all social classes, including a responsibility of charity for the poor.” (A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Disapora Peoples by Kevin MacDonald) p 406-407
St Basil of Caesarea, Homilia II in Psalmum XIV
“The Lord gave his own injunction quite plainly in the words, “from him that would borrow of the turn, not thou away.” (Matthew 5:42) But what of the money lover? He sees before him a man under stress of necessity to the ground in supplication. He sees him hesitating at no act, no words, of humiliation. He sees him suffering, undeserved, misfortune, but he is merciless. He does not reckon that he is a fellow-creature. He does not give in to his entreaties. He stay stiff and sour. He is moved by no prayers; his resolution is broken by no tears. He persist in refusal…
Then the suppliant mentions interest, And utters the word security. All is changed. The frown is relaxed; with a genial smile he recalls old family connection. Now it is “my friend.” “I will see,” Says he, “ If I have any money by me. Yes, there is that sum which a man I know has left in my hands on deposit for profit. He stipulated a very heavy rate of interest. However, I shall certainly take something off, and give it to you on better terms.” With pretenses of this kind talk like this, he fawns on the wretched victim, and induces him to swallow the bait. Then he binds him with a written Security, adds loss of liberty to the trouble of his pressing poverty, and is off. The man who has made himself responsible for that he cannot pay, has accepted voluntary slavery for life.” (St Basil of Caesarea, 329-379 AD, Homilia II in Psalmum XIV)
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand
“ Most businesses finance their undertakings, at least in part, by means of bank loans. Banks function as an investment clearing house, investing the savings of their customers in those enterprises which promise to be most successful. Banks do not have unlimited funds to loan; they are limited in the credit that they can extend by the amount of their gold reserves. In order to remain successful, to make profits, and thus attract the savings of investors, banks must make their loans judiciously: they must seek out those ventures which they judge to be most sound and potentially profitable.
“If in a period of increasing speculation, banks are confronted with an ordinate number of request for loans, then, in response to the shrinking availability of money, they (a) raise their interest rates, and (b) scrutinize more severely the ventures for which loans are requested, setting more exacting standards of what constitutes a justifiable investment. As a consequence, funds are more difficult to obtain, and there is temporary curtailment and contract of business investment. Businessmen are often unable to borrow funds they desire, and have to reduce plans for expansion. The purchase of common stocks, which reflects the investors’ estimates of the future earnings of companies, is similarly curtailed; overvalued stocks fall in price. Businesses, engaged and uneconomic ventures, now unable to obtain additional credit, or obliged to close their doors; further waste of productive factors is stopped, and economic errors are liquidated.” (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand p80-81)
Debt: The First 5,000 Years by David Graeber
“ Looking over world literature, it is almost impossible to find a single sympathetic representation of a moneylender – or anyway, a professional moneylender, which means by definition one who charges interest. I’m not sure there is another professional (executioners?) with such a consistently bad image. It’s especially remarkable when one considers that unlike executioners, usurers often rank among the richest and most powerful people in their communities. The very name, “usurer, invokes images of loan sharks, blood money, pounds of flesh, the selling of souls, and behind them all, the Devil, often represented as himself, a kind of usurer, an evil accountant with his books and ledger, or alternately as the figure just behind the usurer, bidding his time until he repossesses the soul of a villain, who, by his very occupation, has clearly made a compact with Hell.
“ Historically, there have been only two effective way for a lender to try to wriggle out of the opprobrium: either shunt off responsibility on some third-party, or insist that the borrower is even worse. In Medieval Europe, for instance, lords often took the first approach, employing Jews as surrogates. Many would even speak of “our “Jews – that is, Jews under their personal protection – though in practice this usually meant that they would first deny Jews in their territories any means of making a living, except by usury (guaranteeing that they would be wildly detested), then periodically turn on them, claiming they were detestable creatures, and take the money for themselves. The second approach is, of course, more common. But it usually leads to the conclusion that both parties to alone are equally guilty; the whole affair is a shabby business; and most likely, both are damned.” (Debt: The First 5,000 Years by David Graeber p.10-11).
Comments
Post a Comment