The Love of Money & Problems It Causes

[LordsFire]

You truly do not believe that the practice of renting money changes its nature to make the acquisition of a horde of money more tempting? Surely you must have observed the fruits of such practices in the modern Western financial sectors!

And purchasing my favorite foods instead of ones I am indifferent to or dislike makes gluttony more tempting.

Spending time with people I find it hard to get along with tempts me more towards wrath.

Being around attractive women brings more temptation towards lust.

Living in the first world in general makes it easier to give in to sloth.

Accomplishing great deeds makes it easier to fall into pride.

Seeing nice things that other people have makes it easier to fall into envy.


So, should I avoid all of these things? Should I isolate myself in an empty forest, with no creature comforts, and specifically avoid creating anything I could be proud of?

It's the same line of logic.


And yes, I see the fruits of corruption in the financial sectors. It can be very horrible. I also understand economics and history well enough to know that the entire modern infrastructure of civilization either would not have been built at all, or would have been built massively more slowly and with much lesser distribution if not for lending with interest, investment with dividends, etc.

There are absolutely some specific practices that I consider unethical, but your argument is posed against lending with interest in general.

 

[bintananth]

Moneylenders were among the only people Christ ever used violence against.

They weren't money lenders. They were money changers.

The problem wasn't that they were doing currency exchange. It's that they were plying their trade in the Temple.

The reason they were in the Temple: offerings in only one currency were accepted as valid and it wasn't Roman currency.

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

And you completely miss the entire point.

Usury has had a very specific definition since the 5th Lateran Council of 1515

“For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk” (Session X).

You are leaving out 'any expense or any risk' from your definition. By definition, a loan is a risk and an expense, for when a loan is made, the lender has no use of the money until such time as it is paid back, and if it is not paid back risks losing it. Your rants about 'renting money' rely purely on the first of three conditions that must ALL be fulfilled for it to be usury.

It must profit without any work.
It must profit without any expense.
It must profit without any risk.

The first time the latter two points were ignored was by the early fundamentalists.

Note that Jesus himself instructs Christians to loan money, and distinguishes this loan from gifts! Matthew 5:42.

Usury - Scripture Catholic

Many people believe that “usury” is the practice of charging interest on a loan. Because the Catholic Church has condemned usury and now supposedly permits and benefits from this practice, anti-Catholics argue that the Church has contradicted her own teaching. If the Church has contradicted her...

www.scripturecatholic.com

I do not find the 5th Lateran Council's ruling in this matter compelling. It seems to me an example of Catholicism yielding to the business interests of the time, much as most modern day Protestants yield to globalist media. Neither are infallible.

Matthew 5:42: "Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

There is no connection to usury here, borrowing does not require the collection of interest, and does not necessarily refer to money either.

In Matthew 25 Jesus speaks of judgement, and offers two extended analogies for what the Kingdom of Heaven will be like. One of them is the parable of the talents. Neither is a direct exhortation to carry flasks of oil or to engage in investment or usury, they are exhortations to prepare ourselves for judgement, to offer God a proper return on the investment He has made in us.

They weren't money lenders. They were money changers.

The problem wasn't that they were doing currency exchange. It's that they were plying their trade in the Temple.

The reason they were in the Temple: offerings in only one currency were accepted as valid and it wasn't Roman currency.

Additionally, they made the temple "a den of robbers", which I believe was on account of using money changing to extort wealth beyond the proper tithe for personal gain. But, you are right, I wrote hastily and should have double-checked before posting.

 

[LordSunhawk]

Ahhh yes, a typically anti-Catholic fundamentalist bigot. Gotcha.

News flash to you. Every moment you are on the internet you are acting contrary to the world view that you claim to hold. Every second you sit on a computer or a smartphone you are engaging in base hypocrisy to the values you claim to uphold. Do you have money in your wallet? Burn it, because otherwise you are a hypocrite, preaching against the very thing you covet. Do you have a single penny in a bank account? You hypocrite, engaging in the very thing you damn.

So go ahead, tough guy, uphold the values that supposedly make you more pious than us Catholics. We'll wait. Forgive us if we don't bother holding our breath.

 

[Bear Ribs]

26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

- Jesus Christ, castigating a servant in a parable for not committing Usury, according to some people, I guess?

 

[Whitestrake Pelinal]

Ahhh yes, a typically anti-Catholic fundamentalist bigot. Gotcha.

News flash to you. Every moment you are on the internet you are acting contrary to the world view that you claim to hold. Every second you sit on a computer or a smartphone you are engaging in base hypocrisy to the values you claim to uphold. Do you have money in your wallet? Burn it, because otherwise you are a hypocrite, preaching against the very thing you covet. Do you have a single penny in a bank account? You hypocrite, engaging in the very thing you damn.

So go ahead, tough guy, uphold the values that supposedly make you more pious than us Catholics. We'll wait. Forgive us if we don't bother holding our breath.

How did you jump from a reasoned dispute over the nature of usury to calling me anti-Catholic? I have no animosity for your church as a whole. I think ill of some things the Catholic church has done in the past, and a few it does today, but I can say the same about any major Christian sect.

How can you honestly call me a hypocrite for not having removed myself from a financial system I have spent more than forty years entwined within, after a few weeks of thinking that it does not merely have a few bad apples spoiling the bunch, but a rotten ideological core? Believer it or not, I am trying to figure out how to extricate myself and still fulfill my various obligations. It won't be easy.

Why wouldn't I go to the internet to debate? Iron sharpens iron, and the written word is in some ways superior to conversation for discussing abstract things. Sure, I could write letters and mail them, but... isn't that pretty much what I'm doing here?

 

[LordsFire]

Why wouldn't I go to the internet to debate? Iron sharpens iron, and the written word is in some ways superior to conversation for discussing abstract things. Sure, I could write letters and mail them, but... isn't that pretty much what I'm doing here?

So, your response to my last argument then?

 

[Abhishekm]

Why Banks Don't Need Your Money to Make Loans

Here's more information about how banks don't need your money to make loans, but they do want it to make those loans more profitable.

www.investopedia.com

.
I like investopedia. Don't know its politics or anything or even if it is political. But its a good pedia as far as I know.

Though arguments can probably be made that a lot of current financial practices meet all three biblical requirements for Usury. Given the nature of government backed subsidies, federal insurance for banks and government programs incentivizing otherwise risky loans. Not to mention the nature of fiat currency and the involvement of banks int hst process.

Fiat currency (managed using promises in fiat currency), they exert nothing in their own labour, federal insurance, they risk nothing in chance, government incentives to approve bad loans, they expend nothing in costs. But these are just ramblings anyway.

 

[Abhishekm]

Because really if you think about it Loans and Investments get grouped together alot because left alone Loans should be a lot like Investments in the first place.

Investing in someone's word that they will repay that investment with profit for the risk incurred. Even with physical or tangible assets linked to that agreement.

Not our fault loans have kinda been twisted into a government/corporatist ponzi scheme. Honestly if you start considering rising inflation as a ponzi scheme ramping up until it eventually and inevitably goes hyper it makes a lot more sense.

Well spending driven inflation during a recession/depression anyway. I get the whole currency as a token of value provided/owed as a general concept.

Its just something you have to lookout for when certain parties have the ability to create those same tokens for next to no effort compared to the value represented by the token.

 

[bintananth]

Fiat currency (managed using promises in fiat currency), they exert nothing in their own labour, federal insurance, they risk nothing in chance, government incentives to approve bas loans, they expend nothing in costs. But these are just ramblings anyway.

Fiat currency isn't really all that different from money made from/backed by precious metals: it's only worth what people agree it's worth.

Sure, precious metals can be used to make physical things in ways paper currency or an entry in a bank's ledger can't but at that point you're just getting into semantics because most people probably aren't too interested in walking around with a bunch of gold and silver coins when pieces of paper and coins made of base metals or a piece of plastic linked to a bank account gets the job done just as well.

 

[Abhishekm]

Christianity forbids Idol worship yes. But Tokens aren't anything new or antithetical to it. And money at its base is a token representing 'values or 'use'. So even fiat money isn't an antithetical concept to it.

The issue is if that 'value' represented by the token is real or whether it is being taken advantage of to the point of 'Usury'.

So whats the 'Value' represented/owed/provided by governments, central banks and other associated institutions? Somewhere between Priceless and Worthless. So much like money itself honestly.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Fiat currency isn't really all that different from money made from/backed by precious metals: it's only worth what people agree it's worth.

Sure, precious metals can be used to make physical things in ways paper currency or an entry in a bank's ledger can't but at that point you're just getting into semantics because most people probably aren't too interested in walking around with a bunch of gold and silver coins when pieces of paper and coins made of base metals or a piece of plastic linked to a bank account gets the job done just as well.

No, there's a significant difference. You can't make the goldmine go Brrr. Fiat Currency is superior to backed currency if the one controlling the money printer is highly disciplined and looking out for the good of the country. However, without that theoretical highly disciplined manager, backed currency that can't be printed like crazy to pay the cost of printing like crazy is far, far superior and more stable. Backed currency is unlikely to ever have something like Zimbabwe's inflation.

 

[Abhishekm]

No, there's a significant difference. You can't make the goldmine go Brrr.

True, and thats a great benefit. Alternatively the argument can be made that low cost/easy availability of currency is a feature and a central one at that.

Because paper money began as representative money backed by gold. Becuse exchanging goods and services using notes made things a lot easier compared to weighing out gold dust and having the other party check it for authenticity. It served moneys purpose as a Token of value even closer.

So did shifting of money away from gold because you couldn't really get away with just having dollars represent lower and lower amounts of gold because there is a ceiling to how much people would value a shiny yellow metal (go figure).

Like finding a million tons of gold in death valley would technically let you print all money in gold but it would also kinda tank its value to the point gold coins would be fiat money anyway. Same with valuing one gram of gold at 10 grand. At a certain point even gold becomes fiat if you use it to trade for enough other stuff.

The issue comes down to what is the 'value' providing or represented by being the ones managing the mediums of exchange. Becuase when institutions cross that is when it becomes profiting from noting. Though thats just my two bit opinion of the day.

 

[bintananth]

Because paper money began as representative money backed by gold. Becuse exchanging goods and services using notes made things a lot easier compared to weighing out gold dust and having the other party check it for authenticity. It served moneys purpose as a Token of value even closer.

Paper money (and banking) actually began as letters of credit which worked as followed: A merchant deposits money with a trusted third party in exchange for a letter telling someone trusted in a different city to "give this person X amount of money when they present this letter."

It worked because transporting large amounts of cash is risky and armed guards are expensive. The third parties would get together from time to time to see how much they owed each other as a result of these letters and make a (hopefully) small exchange to cover the difference.

This system relied on trust and reputation. Merchants were willing to pay for the privilege of not taking large amounts of gold and silver with them wherever they went.

 

[Abhishekm]

Paper money (and banking) actually began as letters of credit which worked as followed: A merchant deposits money with a trusted third party in exchange for a letter telling someone trusted in a different city to "give this person X amount of money when they present this letter."

So representations of other stuff usually gold? Same statement different words I suppose.

 

[bintananth]

So representations of other stuff usually gold? Same statement different words I suppose.

On Yap in Micronesia the natives use giant stone coins called Rai with a hole cut in them so they can be moved as money. They rarely move the large ones because they can weigh thousands of pounds but do keep track of who owns which one.

Anything can be money as long as people agree it's money.

Rai stones - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Abhishekm]

On Yap in Micronesia the natives use giant stone coins called Rai with a hole cut in them so they can be moved as money. They rarely move the large ones because they can weigh thousands of pounds but do keep track of who owns which one.

Anything can be money as long as people agree it's money.

Rai stones - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

True, though grain like rice in Japan makes the most sense for the periods honestly. And heh, I remember seeing vids about those stones. Too big to move so you sold the rights to them, some times percentage or rights and some time son ones nobody remembered the exact locations of. Much, modern monterrey theory, much speculation. Next to the Tulip bubble in funniest to me.

 

[bintananth]

True, though grain like rice in Japan makes the most sense for the periods honestly. And heh, I remember seeing vids about those stones. Too big to move so you sold the rights to them, some times percentage or rights and some time son ones nobody remembered the exact locations of. Much, modern monterrey theory, much speculation. Next to the Tulip bubble in funniest to me.

It's not speculation on their part. A Rai once fell off a canoe and sank. Everyone agreed it must still be there even though they couldn't get to it or recover it and juat sorta shrugged and kept using it as money.

The Mayans and Aztecs used Cocoa Beans as currency. For them money literally did grow on trees. Now that's what I call funny.

Note: The Tulip bubble was a pure speculative asset bubble that burst and reaulted in a lot of people taking a very unpleasant financial bath.

 

[Bear Ribs]

It's not speculation on their part. A Rai once fell off a canoe and sank. Everyone agreed it must still be there even though they couldn't get to it or recover it and juat sorta shrugged and kept using it as money.

The Mayans and Aztecs used Cocoa Beans as currency. For them money literally did grow on trees. Now that's what I call funny.

Note: The Tulip bubble was a pure speculative asset bubble that burst and reaulted in a lot of people taking a very unpleasant financial bath.

The cocoa bean economy worked better than anything so bizarre had a right to. The money supply grew basically exactly in lockstep with the available workforce, preventing excessive inflation or deflation, and cocoa beans had to be consumed before they rotted so the system dramatically discouraged hoarding or excessive collecting of wealth for its own sake. Further, the ability to effectively plant money and have it grow into money trees greatly encouraged long-term planning and delayed gratification, things highly valuable to society.

 

[Abhishekm]

It's not speculation on their part. A Rai once fell off a canoe and sank. Everyone agreed it must still be there even though they couldn't get to it or recover it and juat sorta shrugged and kept using it as money.

Eh, trading on money at the bottom of the sea. Sounds almost as sketchy as funny money to me.