I posted this elsewhere, but I'm also interested to read what folks here might have to say about this.
I just read an article/summary by E. Michael Jones about his new book, Barren Metal. He stated that it is pretty much a sequel to The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.
There was one part in this article that caught my attention. I thought it rather peculiar. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. But it seems like he supports Pope Francis' economic opinion about capitalism. In fact, Jones makes it appealing to accept Pope Francis' condemnation about capitalism, and he does this under the premise that pure unleashed capitalism is very destructive:
http://www.culturewars.com/2014/Strangled.htm
QuoteIt's clear that a new wind is blowing from Rome. The pope and Cardinal Rodriguez of Tegucigalpa, his right hand man, are open in their criticism of capitalism, whose pernicious effects are exponentially worse in third-world countries like Honduras. In addition to condemning Capitalism, the pope has also shown himself willing to intervene when he feels that a bishop is not doing his job. The pope's intervention into the management of the Vatican Bank is one example of what I'm talking about. The case of the Bling Bishop in Germany is another. On October 23, 2103 Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst was suspended from his post as bishop of Limburg for cost overruns on the renovation of diocesan facilities. Six months later, on March 26, 2014, the pope accepted Bishop Tebartz-van Elst's resignation.[13] Is allowing the subversion of Catholic Social Teaching less of an offense than spending too much money on a bathtub? If that is not the case, then hasn't Bishop Walkowiak forced the Vatican's hand by refusing to act against Sirico and the Acton Institute, both of which are notorious in Rome? Why is a man who spent his earlier career as a promoter of sodomy and his current career as a promoter of usury a priest in good-standing in the Catholic Church? Aren't sodomy and withholding the wages of the worker sins that cry to heaven for vengeance? Even Wikipedia knows that much Catholic theology.[14] How can a priest who has made a career of promoting two of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance be a priest in good standing in the Catholic Church? Does the Church stand for anything anymore? Is Rome willing to act when the local bishop isn't? Is paying too much for a bathtub worse than condoning sins that cry to heaven for vengeance?
I've been looking forward to Barren Metal all year. In this book, I believe Jones will lay out just how specifically the Catholic people here in the United States are screwed by an evil Judaic system of usury. But to think that Jones might be sympathetic to Pope Francis in any way--I find that interesting. Myself, I'm not a fan at all of our new pontiff. I can't think of one thing he's done that I'm grateful for. Yet, here we have E. Michael Jones, fighter of the Christ Killers himself, and he's found something seemingly positive about Pope Francis. Jones has always been able to think outside the box.
---
About the book, here's a little more:
QuoteBarren Metal is, among other things, the story of the rise and fall of economics as the self-regulating mechanism. It is the story of the rise of capitalism as the regime of state-sponsored usury. It is the story of the awakening of the German mind in the face of this threat and the creation of the Germanic-Catholic alternative to the English Newtonian model of economics as pseudo-physics. It is the story of the theft of labor.
In addition to being a history of Capitalism, Barren Metal is the sequel to The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.
On one of his walks through Paris, Honore de Balzac, the French novelist, encountered the richest man in France strolling arm in arm with Heinrich Heine, the revolutionary who did his best to overthrow Capitalism during the Revolution of 1848. Viewed from a political or an economic perspective the two men should have been on opposite sides of the revolutionary barricades, but Balzac was smart enough to see that ethnic blood ran thicker that political water, no matter how turbulent. Heine the Revolutionary and Rothschild the financier could walk arm in arm because both men were Jews and because together they embodied "tout l'esprit et tout l'argent des Juifs."
In America, both the spirit and the money come together at think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute. Rich Jews funding revolutionary Jews and their movements is nothing new. Jacob Schiff funded the Bolsheviks. Lloyd Blankfein supports gay marriage, the prime Jewish revolutionary movement in our day. Rich Jews, like David Rubenstein, co-founder of the Carlyle Group, fund the American Enterprise Institute, which paid for Michael Novak's book. That book has corrupted the mind of every single American bishop, if not directly then through initiatives like the Manhattan Declaration, orchestrated by Robbie George, another mouth that feeds at the AEI trough.
Thoughts?
Well the rest of the article focuses on the evils of capitalism as promoted by "Fr" Sirico, you know, that priest he mentioned who is in good standing with his diocese but who also ran a gay slave auction? Yeah...
He builds off the definition given in Centesimus Annus. As far as I can tell, this is a condemnation of usury under the guise of capitalism.
Quote from: trentcath on November 30, 2014, 09:21:14 AM
Quote from: Pheo on November 30, 2014, 07:43:43 AM
ran a gay slave auction?
WTH?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At least he's in "full communion"?
QuoteOne year later Rev. Sirico dressed in a black clerical suit with a Roman collar, made the pages of the Seattle Post Intelligencer under the headline ?Male Slave Mart Raid in LA called a Mistake.? On April 10, 1976 Los Angeles policemen dressed in riot gear arrested 40 persons participating in a homosexual ?slave market? held at the Mark IV Health Club in Hollywood. The bathhouse was operated by a sadomasochist cult called the Leather Fraternity. Nude ?male slaves? were led on stage by an auctioneer and inspected by potential buyers. ?Slaves? went for $10 to $75. [even more disgusting part redacted - Pheo] The event was sponsored by the Los Angeles Gay Community headed by Rev. Sirico, who told the PI reporter that the Los Angeles Police Department was ?out to get? the gay community. Rev. Sirico called the event a ?harmless fund-raising event? staged to raise money for the Center?s venereal disease clinic.
Point of the article being...this is one of the men charging the usurious cause.
Quote from: Pheo on November 30, 2014, 09:46:05 AM
Quote from: trentcath on November 30, 2014, 09:21:14 AM
Quote from: Pheo on November 30, 2014, 07:43:43 AM
ran a gay slave auction?
WTH?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At least he's in "full communion"?
QuoteOne year later Rev. Sirico dressed in a black clerical suit with a Roman collar, made the pages of the Seattle Post Intelligencer under the headline "Male Slave Mart Raid in LA called a Mistake." On April 10, 1976 Los Angeles policemen dressed in riot gear arrested 40 persons participating in a homosexual "slave market" held at the Mark IV Health Club in Hollywood. The bathhouse was operated by a sadomasochist cult called the Leather Fraternity. Nude "male slaves" were led on stage by an auctioneer and inspected by potential buyers. "Slaves" went for $10 to $75. [even more disgusting part redacted - Pheo] The event was sponsored by the Los Angeles Gay Community headed by Rev. Sirico, who told the PI reporter that the Los Angeles Police Department was "out to get" the gay community. Rev. Sirico called the event a "harmless fund-raising event" staged to raise money for the Center's venereal disease clinic.
Point of the article being...this is one of the men charging the usurious cause.
Thanks for clarifying that. I am not sure I will ever be shocked again...
Capitalism needs to be criticized using Catholic tools. I think Jones here is making a mistake in supposing that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I think you're right Jacob, and it would be interesting to see how he goes about making his point in the book, but I can't afford it.
I suppose I should say that the claims against Sirico are alleged, but they were public statements. Engel is the one who asked for Rome to investigate his ordination given his (hopefully former) stance on these things.
Quote from: Pheo on November 30, 2014, 07:43:43 AM
Well the rest of the article focuses on the evils of capitalism as promoted by "Fr" Sirico, you know, that priest he mentioned who is in good standing with his diocese but who also ran a gay slave auction? Yeah...
He builds off the definition given in Centesimus Annus. As far as I can tell, this is a condemnation of usury under the guise of capitalism.
Whether or not you like Father Sirico their is no reason to doubt his holy orders. Calling him Reverend, Presbyter or some other title would seem to be better than calling into question his ordination by putting "Fr" in sneer quotes.
What he did when he was a rabid liberal in the 1970's and a pseudo christian protestant is not what he believes today. To my knowledge he became/returned to the Catholic Church in the late 70's and was not ordained as a priest until 1989.
Unless we want to embrace some flavor of Donatism, a homosexual even if they are prohibited from receiving holy orders by Canon law, once they receive it are still Priests.
One does not need to dig hard to find that he does not support sodomy today, while his confession and abhorence of sodomy falls short of St Bernardine of Siena it appears to be in line with what most people in the Church say today:
"In particular I see the current ?impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships [a]s a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture.? In this regard I believe the ?gay marriage? question arises today because as a culture we no longer fully understand what marriage itself is in its biblical and theological meaning. To abandon the Church?s view of marriage will erode the marriage culture itself, with wide and deleterious repercussions. "
Source
http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/fr-robert-sirico-gay-marriages-he-once-performed
Many people have written objections to Father Sirico association with the Acton Instiutute and how it comes into conflict with Catholic Social Teaching. By all means raise your objections, but he has repented of his past, and he is a priest, if God has forgiven him by all means let us not sneer at him.
It wasn't intended as a sneer quote, but that wasn't clear at all. He wasn't a Catholic priest at the time, although he was dressed up as one. He was the head of a "church" specifically founded to be gay friendly.
ETA: I wouldn't hesitate to say he never should have been ordained though.
It's like I always suspected - Pope Francis' ideas on economics are nearly identical to those of Chesterton, Belloc, and those who support distributism.
If Trads are offended, well they shouldn't be - it's the truth.
Quote from: Pheo on November 30, 2014, 12:22:43 PM
It wasn't intended as a sneer quote, but that wasn't clear at all. He wasn't a Catholic priest at the time, although he was dressed up as one. He was the head of a "church" specifically founded to be gay friendly.
ETA: I wouldn't hesitate to say he never should have been ordained though.
Ok :toth:
QuoteThe pope and Cardinal Rodriguez of Tegucigalpa, his right hand man, are open in their criticism of capitalism, whose pernicious effects are exponentially worse in third-world countries like Honduras.
LOL. I suggest E Michael Jones try to run a business in one of these supposedly capitalist states.
Actually there is a sick book called "The Mystery of Capital" by de Soto. He went to these supposedly capitalist states with a couple of typical business type transactions: forming a business, selling property, etc.... The sick part is he actually went through the rule books and documents all of the steps, permits, licenses, forms, etc... the government in these capitalist states requires you to fill out. He then gave an estimate of how long it would take to do one of these transactions. It's been a long time since I read it, but a typical number would be 3 years to sell a piece of property in Honduras. DeSoto's conclusion was that the reason these countries are poor is because of the humongous government intervention. That would also explain why corruption is so wide spread. Want to sell your house? Pay the government slug $100, and he'll give you the stamp you need.
Jacob is correct and this is not uncommon amongst traditionalists.
There is a prominent Catholic 'traditionalist' professor, whose name I will retain, who has gone overboard in a) critiquing every aspect of America's capitalistic system b) celebrating Pope Francis's blatantly socialist economic program and c) appealing to 'distributism' as a very thin artifice to cover what effectively is an endorsement of another evil.
Human nature what it is, we tend to have the most problems with those things (or people) closest to us. So, since capitalism and its usurious, craft-destroying, greed-enhancing attributes are most obvious to us, there is a temptation to think that the grass is greener on the other side.
The devil that we don't know, some half baked 'redistribution' that some trads pine for will not end well for any of us. Perhaps some think that the powers that be really could be coaxed into breaking their mechanism of control and equitably distributing property (in my view, a purely insane perspective to take.) Others think that a civil war/rebellion led by the likes of George Soros's Occupy Wall Street is going to lead to better days (again, purely insane.)
Practical and morally sound advice? Work within the environment you find yourself and do what you can.
The Rockefellers will not be breaking up there holdings to fairly give to people anytime soon (and even if they did, within two generations there will be tiers of socio-economic classes, which is why so-called Distributism is not a real solution.) And I highly doubt that the sick dreams of a rebellion will go any farther than the imaginations of leftists.
God placed us here and thus did not make a mistake. So, that practical advice: Become technically skilled and after a time, offer such services independently. Not easy, not something most people are willing to commit to. But if you want to support a family, and have some modicum of autonomy, and own your production, that's your option.
To put what KingTheoden said in another way, if you want to have an influence for the better on the economy, you have to do the work yourself. It's better to become a fair and just employer than to agitate for radical social changes that attempt to force others to be fair and just. The latter cannot be done effectively as there are always ways to game any system.
Immoral people manipulate the flaws in both capitalism and socialism and that will always be the case. However, the flaws of socialism are greater because by its very nature, it destroys the autonomy that the little guy needs to conduct a fair trade. Socialism puts all the cards in the hands of the elite and leaves everyone else with whatever the elite condescends to offer.
Of course capitalism can never be in and of itself the cure to all ills. The love of money is the root of all evil and sooner or later, successful entrepreneurs will discover that growth becomes easier when greedy political leaders are presented with bribes in return for favors. No law can protect against this forever because immoral politicians can always change the laws to protect their interests.
Few people are entirely wrong or entirely right. That pope Francis should be right about certain economic ideas is of no surprise. Some peoples views here seem a bit ridiculous, to assume His Holiness is entirely wrong all the time is silly. Even I'm not entirely wrong all the time. ;D
Quote from: KingTheoden on December 01, 2014, 08:22:11 AM
Jacob is correct and this is not uncommon amongst traditionalists.
There is a prominent Catholic 'traditionalist' professor, whose name I will retain, who has gone overboard in a) critiquing every aspect of America's capitalistic system b) celebrating Pope Francis's blatantly socialist economic program and c) appealing to 'distributism' as a very thin artifice to cover what effectively is an endorsement of another evil.
Human nature what it is, we tend to have the most problems with those things (or people) closest to us. So, since capitalism and its usurious, craft-destroying, greed-enhancing attributes are most obvious to us, there is a temptation to think that the grass is greener on the other side.
The devil that we don't know, some half baked 'redistribution' that some trads pine for will not end well for any of us. Perhaps some think that the powers that be really could be coaxed into breaking their mechanism of control and equitably distributing property (in my view, a purely insane perspective to take.) Others think that a civil war/rebellion led by the likes of George Soros's Occupy Wall Street is going to lead to better days (again, purely insane.)
Practical and morally sound advice? Work within the environment you find yourself and do what you can.
The Rockefellers will not be breaking up there holdings to fairly give to people anytime soon (and even if they did, within two generations there will be tiers of socio-economic classes, which is why so-called Distributism is not a real solution.) And I highly doubt that the sick dreams of a rebellion will go any farther than the imaginations of leftists.
God placed us here and thus did not make a mistake. So, that practical advice: Become technically skilled and after a time, offer such services independently. Not easy, not something most people are willing to commit to. But if you want to support a family, and have some modicum of autonomy, and own your production, that's your option.
But none of that stops us from looking and theorising about other possible solutions. Besides which you presume that the current system is sustainable and we will just have to put up with it, it is not and consequently its prudent to consider alternatives when the system eventually comes tumbling down.
QuoteBesides which you presume that the current system is sustainable and we will just have to put up with it, it is not and consequently its prudent to consider alternatives when the system eventually comes tumbling down.
My fear is that it IS sustainable. We turn into some corporatist slackwater like Latin America where the idea of a man working hard and becoming successful in his trade is treated like a faire tale. Instead you wait in line to get your allotment of government beans.
Quote from: james03 on December 04, 2014, 07:30:15 PM
QuoteBesides which you presume that the current system is sustainable and we will just have to put up with it, it is not and consequently its prudent to consider alternatives when the system eventually comes tumbling down.
My fear is that it IS sustainable. We turn into some corporatist slackwater like Latin America where the idea of a man working hard and becoming successful in his trade is treated like a faire tale. Instead you wait in line to get your allotment of government beans.
Don't be silly, no system which relies on something that is inherently worthless i.e.debt, can last forever.
Quote from: trentcath on December 05, 2014, 06:51:01 AM
Don't be silly, no system which relies on something that is inherently worthless i.e.debt, can last forever.
Whatever debt is in the system is a result of central banking and not of capitalism. Actually, our economic system is not capitalism but rather corporatism - which shows that government control of the economy always leads to disaster.
I know one thing - I'll never take Chris Ferrara and the Distributists seriously when it comes to economics. His attempt at refuting Murray Rothbard was laughable at best.
Quote from: Angelorum on December 05, 2014, 12:55:57 PM
Quote from: trentcath on December 05, 2014, 06:51:01 AM
Don't be silly, no system which relies on something that is inherently worthless i.e.debt, can last forever.
Whatever debt is in the system is a result of central banking and not of capitalism
No it's not. Governments, corporations, people, all run on debt whether it be loans from the IMF, government selling their own debt, companies borrowing through loan syndicates to buy other companies or consumers using credit cards, debt is the very lifeblood of our current economy.
Quote
Actually, our economic system is not capitalism but rather corporatism - which shows that government control of the economy always leads to disaster.
Perhaps but either way the issue is that capitalism as its been understood since the reformation is fundamentally flawed.
QuoteDon't be silly, no system which relies on something that is inherently worthless i.e.debt, can last forever.
Debt is not inherently worthless. It can be productive and generate a return. Easy example, if I loan you my lawnmower, and you cut the grass with it, you have been productive. From the time you pick up the lawnmower to the time you return it, you are in my debt -- (1) lawnmower.
Usury, by its very definition, is inherently worthless.
Quotecapitalism as its been understood since the reformation is fundamentally flawed.
There are a host of "understandings". If capitalism means a system of subsidiarity coupled with the respect for private property, and a dedication to commutative justice, it is not fundamentally flawed, it is instead very Catholic.
If capitalism is instead synonymous with usury, then it is beyond flawed, it is sinful.
Quote from: james03 on December 06, 2014, 01:47:09 PM
Quotecapitalism as its been understood since the reformation is fundamentally flawed.
There are a host of "understandings". If capitalism means a system of subsidiarity coupled with the respect for private property, and a dedication to commutative justice, it is not fundamentally flawed, it is instead very Catholic.
If capitalism is instead synonymous with usury, then it is beyond flawed, it is sinful.
I am not sure anyone would ever define Capitalism as you have above. There are other systems that meet that definition but not capitalism.
Quote from: james03 on December 06, 2014, 01:44:22 PM
QuoteDon't be silly, no system which relies on something that is inherently worthless i.e.debt, can last forever.
Debt is not inherently worthless. It can be productive and generate a return. Easy example, if I loan you my lawnmower, and you cut the grass with it, you have been productive. From the time you pick up the lawnmower to the time you return it, you are in my debt -- (1) lawnmower.
Usury, by its very definition, is inherently worthless.
Debt in the abstract is worthless. I'm also not sure I would described the situation above as 'debt' rather I would say the person has an obligation to return the lawnmower.
Quote from: trentcath on December 07, 2014, 03:04:51 AM
Quote from: james03 on December 06, 2014, 01:44:22 PM
QuoteDon't be silly, no system which relies on something that is inherently worthless i.e.debt, can last forever.
Debt is not inherently worthless. It can be productive and generate a return. Easy example, if I loan you my lawnmower, and you cut the grass with it, you have been productive. From the time you pick up the lawnmower to the time you return it, you are in my debt -- (1) lawnmower.
Usury, by its very definition, is inherently worthless.
Debt in the abstract is worthless. I'm also not sure I would described the situation above as 'debt' rather I would say the person has an obligation to return the lawnmower.
Modify the scenario slightly. Joe borrows a $2,000 mower from Dan, then proceeds to mow the lawns of 20 suburban homes over a week-long period. Each homeowner nets Joe $20 profit so he collects $400 then returns the mower to Dan along with a $100 check to cover wear and tear and compensate for Dan's inability to use the mower for a week.
Effectively, Joe borrowed $2,000 over a week period, was productive and paid back the principle plus interest yet came out $300 ahead. This is how loans can be used to benefit society.
Quote from: trentcath on December 07, 2014, 03:04:51 AM
Debt in the abstract is worthless. I'm also not sure I would described the situation above as 'debt' rather I would say the person has an obligation to return the lawnmower.
This is just engaging in word games. The statement 'Debt in the abstract is worthless' is so vague and undefined that it is impossible to understand what you're trying to say.
Quote from: Akavit on December 07, 2014, 01:42:53 PM
Quote from: trentcath on December 07, 2014, 03:04:51 AM
Quote from: james03 on December 06, 2014, 01:44:22 PM
QuoteDon't be silly, no system which relies on something that is inherently worthless i.e.debt, can last forever.
Debt is not inherently worthless. It can be productive and generate a return. Easy example, if I loan you my lawnmower, and you cut the grass with it, you have been productive. From the time you pick up the lawnmower to the time you return it, you are in my debt -- (1) lawnmower.
Usury, by its very definition, is inherently worthless.
Debt in the abstract is worthless. I'm also not sure I would described the situation above as 'debt' rather I would say the person has an obligation to return the lawnmower.
Modify the scenario slightly. Joe borrows a $2,000 mower from Dan, then proceeds to mow the lawns of 20 suburban homes over a week-long period. Each homeowner nets Joe $20 profit so he collects $400 then returns the mower to Dan along with a $100 check to cover wear and tear and compensate for Dan's inability to use the mower for a week.
Effectively, Joe borrowed $2,000 over a week period, was productive and paid back the principle plus interest yet came out $300 ahead. This is how loans can be used to benefit society.
Here is a real world scenario.
Roofer's $800 Makita chop saw breaks down, motor burn out, on a Friday afternoon. He spends the rest of the afternoon fitting beams and checking his angles and marking up. On the way home he borrows $800 from a PayDay lender, (thanks to the technology I sold them for real-time credit checking and automated decisions and payments) it is in his account in 15 minutes. Saturday he buys the new chop saw and negotiates a $40 discount for cash and Monday he is back at work making $200 per day, cash in hand, because he is working for someone who likes paying cash.
On Thursday he is paid and pays the PayDay lender back 800 dollars plus $70 in interest and fees.
Next few weeks he quits going out on Friday nights and blowing his pay check and pays his credit card off.
In a state with no payday lending, like Montana, the guy takes 10 days to get a loan approval from a bank or credit union, loses his job and finds another job 4 weeks later because he is a skilled roofer with good connections.
In a system that allows payday lending he has a $70 loss, in a system where the government "protect him" from "usurious' (free market) loan rates he loses $3635 dollars.
Realistically the heavy use of a $2000 mower for a week, probably costs more than $100, you also have to factor in the lender's time, the possibility of it not being returned, the fact that many people don't care about or look after tools that don't belong to them. $100 probably would not cover an oil change and the blades being sharpened, which they are certainly going to need after 20 jobs.
Consider a tool hire place. What do they charge for the loan of a $2000 lawn mower for a week? They need to cover, rent of premises, capital depreciation, employment costs, business rates and a bunch of other stuff, like profit for the investors.
http://www.hss.com/g/62246/Flail-Mower.html
Flail mower hire for 1 week is over 400 dollars. Joe better put his prices up to $40 per cut if he wants to come out ahead. Or, save his capital and buy his own flail mower, if he is smart, from someone on ebay.
For there to be a mower that every Dan can borrow there has to be a less than ideal system where a man waits around at a counter for someone to show up and rent his equipment or money is lent to bad credit risks by people who are willing to put their capital at significant risk of not being paid back or having to chase up people who cannot get their act together or keep a promise.
So yes, it would be "nithe" if we could all get interest free loans and people were willing to build low-margin businesses merely to make a reasonable income but that is never going to happen in this lifetime.
What you need to decide is whether you want a world where the mower and the money are available to you to borrow, like the UK or the USA or where they are not, like Honduras or North Korea.
I would prefer to live in a world with a myriad of options where I could generate income by freely delivering the goods and services that people wanted in a way that I thought was best. This allows for innovation. It means that a couple of teenagers in California can start a computer company from their garage.
Meantime IBM can become just another shitty consulting company.
Quote from: Akavit on December 01, 2014, 10:49:27 AM
To put what KingTheoden said in another way, if you want to have an influence for the better on the economy, you have to do the work yourself. It's better to become a fair and just employer than to agitate for radical social changes that attempt to force others to be fair and just. The latter cannot be done effectively as there are always ways to game any system.
Also, if you don't like abortion, don't have one.
Quote from: Francisco Suárez on December 09, 2014, 11:09:13 PM
Quote from: trentcath on December 07, 2014, 03:04:51 AM
Debt in the abstract is worthless. I'm also not sure I would described the situation above as 'debt' rather I would say the person has an obligation to return the lawnmower.
This is just engaging in word games. The statement 'Debt in the abstract is worthless' is so vague and undefined that it is impossible to understand what you're trying to say.
No offence, but saying "xyz in the abstract is" is pretty common, so if you can't understand that I would humbly suggest its more of a fault on your part than mine.
Quote from: Akavit on December 07, 2014, 01:42:53 PM
Quote from: trentcath on December 07, 2014, 03:04:51 AM
Quote from: james03 on December 06, 2014, 01:44:22 PM
QuoteDon't be silly, no system which relies on something that is inherently worthless i.e.debt, can last forever.
Debt is not inherently worthless. It can be productive and generate a return. Easy example, if I loan you my lawnmower, and you cut the grass with it, you have been productive. From the time you pick up the lawnmower to the time you return it, you are in my debt -- (1) lawnmower.
Usury, by its very definition, is inherently worthless.
Debt in the abstract is worthless. I'm also not sure I would described the situation above as 'debt' rather I would say the person has an obligation to return the lawnmower.
Modify the scenario slightly. Joe borrows a $2,000 mower from Dan, then proceeds to mow the lawns of 20 suburban homes over a week-long period. Each homeowner nets Joe $20 profit so he collects $400 then returns the mower to Dan along with a $100 check to cover wear and tear and compensate for Dan's inability to use the mower for a week.
Effectively, Joe borrowed $2,000 over a week period, was productive and paid back the principle plus interest yet came out $300 ahead. This is how loans can be used to benefit society.
I'm not really talking about that, what I am saying is that the sale and re-sale of debt that goes on today in the financial markets isn't sustainable and neither is the addiction to debt of average people and governments. I'm perfectly happy to admit that lending things to others can be beneficial and even that loans are sometimes necessary but when the entire economy runs on something which in and of itself is worthless its not particularly healthy.
So you're referring to practices such as local banks taking on loans then immediately reselling to Fannie May?
Quote from: DrBill on December 10, 2014, 04:19:23 PM
Quote from: Akavit on December 01, 2014, 10:49:27 AM
To put what KingTheoden said in another way, if you want to have an influence for the better on the economy, you have to do the work yourself. It's better to become a fair and just employer than to agitate for radical social changes that attempt to force others to be fair and just. The latter cannot be done effectively as there are always ways to game any system.
Also, if you don't like abortion, don't have one.
In one sense that is actually correct. The biggest repudiation there is against the abortion industry is simply doing the opposite of what they do. Raising a large family then educating the children to reject the abortion culture is a highly effective strategy. It doesn't seem like it nor does it have much visible impact but the reality is that the actions of the majority of individuals rarely have a visible change on world affairs.
Why do you suppose "pro-choicers" have so many insults and slurs to cast at people they think have too many children? It's because irresponsible people hate seeing others do what they know they should be doing themselves.
Pro-life demonstrations are all well and good but the reality is that all they can do is slow the progress of the enemy until enough people wake up and take the necessary actions. It's too bad that a historically, a chastisement is often required before this takes place.
I listened to this a few months ago. It came out before Jones was finished with Barren Metal.
http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=127
The Stark Truth: Interview with E. Michael Jones
Robert interviews E. Michael Jones. Topics include:
-Jones's upcoming book on capitalism entitled Barron Metal;
-The history of usury and compound interest;
-The origins of capitalism;
-Marxism;
-Labor unions;
-His book The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing.
50 minutes.
Quote from: trentcath on December 10, 2014, 05:10:38 PM
Quote from: Akavit on December 07, 2014, 01:42:53 PM
Quote from: trentcath on December 07, 2014, 03:04:51 AM
Quote from: james03 on December 06, 2014, 01:44:22 PM
QuoteDon't be silly, no system which relies on something that is inherently worthless i.e.debt, can last forever.
Debt is not inherently worthless. It can be productive and generate a return. Easy example, if I loan you my lawnmower, and you cut the grass with it, you have been productive. From the time you pick up the lawnmower to the time you return it, you are in my debt -- (1) lawnmower.
Usury, by its very definition, is inherently worthless.
Debt in the abstract is worthless. I'm also not sure I would described the situation above as 'debt' rather I would say the person has an obligation to return the lawnmower.
Modify the scenario slightly. Joe borrows a $2,000 mower from Dan, then proceeds to mow the lawns of 20 suburban homes over a week-long period. Each homeowner nets Joe $20 profit so he collects $400 then returns the mower to Dan along with a $100 check to cover wear and tear and compensate for Dan's inability to use the mower for a week.
Effectively, Joe borrowed $2,000 over a week period, was productive and paid back the principle plus interest yet came out $300 ahead. This is how loans can be used to benefit society.
I'm not really talking about that, what I am saying is that the sale and re-sale of debt that goes on today in the financial markets isn't sustainable and neither is the addiction to debt of average people and governments. I'm perfectly happy to admit that lending things to others can be beneficial and even that loans are sometimes necessary but when the entire economy runs on something which in and of itself is worthless its not particularly healthy.
I think one has to define sustainable in terms on human lifetimes or generations.
No money system is without problems. Many have collapsed in history usually to be replaced by one with different features so that the same problems don't arise, ( but different problems do).
Ours is not perfect, it will surely collapse one day, but when and how I am sure that nobody on this board knows.
If the money system lasts for the rest of my life, with a few tweaks, then as far as I am concerned it was sustainable. I have neither the power nor the responsibility to set economic policy. The best I can do is make a healthy living in the economy I am in.
Frankly, I haven't found it particularly difficult to do that. There are tons of opportunities in western countries and tons of money sloshing around in businesses. One only needs to find a problem to solve or a way of making them more profit, stopping them getting fired or going to jail and businesses will spend money doing that.
If I hadn't been so lazy and enjoyed so many hobbies and distractions I am pretty sure I could have made squillions. But I've never seen the point of sacrificing my life for that. How many sirloin steaks can you eat?
If you cannot make a decent living in the economy today, in western nations, then I fail to see how you would have made one in the past with trade tariffs, local monopolies, inefficiencies, infectious diseases, world wars and religious persecutions to deal with.
Quote from: KingTheoden on December 01, 2014, 08:22:11 AM
Jacob is correct and this is not uncommon amongst traditionalists.
There is a prominent Catholic 'traditionalist' professor, whose name I will retain, who has gone overboard in a) critiquing every aspect of America's capitalistic system b) celebrating Pope Francis's blatantly socialist economic program and c) appealing to 'distributism' as a very thin artifice to cover what effectively is an endorsement of another evil.
This sums up a lot of what is wrong with traditionalists and why I progressively distance myself from them as time goes on. E. Michael Jones is a bonafide nut. Normal rational people will not become trads because of nuts like him. Greg has alluded to it before, the IQ of a lot of the outspoken folks in this movement appears to be pretty pathetic. A lot of it is simply, as you say, going overboard, but a lot of it is also simply not having the brain to parse reality from fantasy. Fitting into the trad community is more than just adoring the Latin Mass. You have to believe all the crazy theories and have an absolute hatred for the United States of America. Why do you have to hate America? Because of the conspiracy theories that imply her sheer essential evil. It is what I would call neo-gnosticism. And that is Jones' angle. He HAS to hate America as much as he does and EVERYTHING about her, BECAUSE of his sick conspiratorial worldview. This is problem number 1 in Catholic traditionalism: neo-gnostic conspiratorial thinking motivated by pride and stupidity.
For the record: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm
"But we may correct this last opinion by the aid of the general principles of contractual justice; and we shall then more fully understand the strictness of the laws of earlier times, and the greater liberty allowed at the present day. The just price of a thing is based on the general estimate, which depends not in all cases on universal utility, but on general utility. Since the possession of an object is generally useful, I may require the price of that general utility, even when the object is of no use to me. There is much greater facility nowadays for making profitable investment of savings, and a true value, therefore, is always attached to the possession of money, as also to credit itself. A lender, during the whole time that the loan continues, deprives himself of a valuable thing, for the price of which he is compensated by the interest. It is right at the present day to permit interest on money lent, as it was not wrong to condemn the practice at a time when it was more difficult to find profitable investments for money. So long as no objection was made to the profitable investment of capital in industrial undertakings, discouragement of interest on loans acted as an encouragement of legitimate trade; it also led to the creation of new contractual associations, such as insurance companies, which give a reasonable hope of gain without risk. The action of the Church has found distinguished defenders, even outside her own pale, among the representatives of contemporary economic science. We may mention three English authors: Marshall, professor of political economy at the University of Cambridge (Principles of Economics, I, I, ii, secs. 8 etc.); Ashley, professor at the new University of Birmingham (An Introduction to English Economic History and Theory, I, I, i, sec. 17); and the celebrated historian of political economy, Professor Cunningham (Growth of English Industry and Commerce, I, II, vi, sec. 85, third edition). Even at the present day, a small number of French catholics (Abbé Morel, "Du prêt à intéret"; Modeste, "Le prêt à intérêt, dernière forme de l'esclavage") see in the attitude of the Church only a tolerance justified by the fear of greater evils. This is not so. The change in the attitude of the Church is due entirely to a change in economic matters that require the present system. The Holy See itself puts its funds out at interest, and requires ecclesiastical administrators to do the same. One writer, Father Belliot of the friars minor, denounces in loans for interest "the principal economic scourge of civilization", though the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few capitalists, which he deplores so much, does not arise so much from lending money at proper interest as from industrial investments, banking operations, and speculations, which have never been condemned as unjust in principle. There has never been at any time any prohibition against the investment of capital in commercial or industrial undertakings or in the public funds."
What is written here is sound Catholic reasoning, written pre-vatican II. Jones' reasoning is not based in Catholic tradition, it is based on jewish conspiracies. That is why he hates usury. And that is my point in all of this. For some, this isn't really about a love of traditional Catholic thought and teaching, it's about a sick view of the world that creates in the place of traditional Catholicism something that never truly existed in the first place.
I agree with Jones and Pope Francis that predatory capitalism, crony capitalism, are evil slavery. These systems do not uphold the dignity of the human person and don't respect his rights. Where Francis and I differ is his idea of a proposed solution; that an international organization like the UN can redistribute wealth and resources in a just and benevolent way. This is false, it is heresy. It leads to one world tyranny. The UN's true religion is population control. It opposes the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.
The church's official teachings support distributism. Since I'm not under penalty of mortal sin for disagreeing with it, I can still present myself for communion.
Jones' other writings seem flaky and off - putting to me.
Quote from: Lambda Phage on December 13, 2014, 08:12:11 AM
Quote from: KingTheoden on December 01, 2014, 08:22:11 AM
Jacob is correct and this is not uncommon amongst traditionalists.
There is a prominent Catholic 'traditionalist' professor, whose name I will retain, who has gone overboard in a) critiquing every aspect of America's capitalistic system b) celebrating Pope Francis's blatantly socialist economic program and c) appealing to 'distributism' as a very thin artifice to cover what effectively is an endorsement of another evil.
This sums up a lot of what is wrong with traditionalists and why I progressively distance myself from them as time goes on. E. Michael Jones is a bonafide nut. Normal rational people will not become trads because of nuts like him. Greg has alluded to it before, the IQ of a lot of the outspoken folks in this movement appears to be pretty pathetic. A lot of it is simply, as you say, going overboard, but a lot of it is also simply not having the brain to parse reality from fantasy. Fitting into the trad community is more than just adoring the Latin Mass. You have to believe all the crazy theories and have an absolute hatred for the United States of America. Why do you have to hate America? Because of the conspiracy theories that imply her sheer essential evil. It is what I would call neo-gnosticism. And that is Jones' angle. He HAS to hate America as much as he does and EVERYTHING about her, BECAUSE of his sick conspiratorial worldview. This is problem number 1 in Catholic traditionalism: neo-gnostic conspiratorial thinking motivated by pride and stupidity.
I have some advice for anyone who hates America.
Travel the world. Spend two years travelling and really experiencing day to day life, work and bureaucracy in other places.
You won't hate America anything like as much when you return. In fact, you might even like it.
America would not be on my top 3 places in the world to live, but it is definitely in the top 10.
Quote from: Lambda Phage on December 13, 2014, 08:12:11 AM
. Fitting into the trad community is more than just adoring the Latin Mass. You have to believe all the crazy theories and have an absolute hatred for the United States of America.
lol
what?
Can you demonstrate this hatred of the US manifested in trad literature or publications please, or are we simply to accept your hyperbole? Also can you provide evidence of community based shunnings based on a non-acceptance of these 'theories'?
Quote from: Greg on December 13, 2014, 12:24:23 PM
America would not be on my top 3 places in the world to live, but it is definitely in the top 10.
That's interesting.
What are your top 10?
I'd like to know what the top 3 are.
QuoteFor the record:
Completely useless. Usury is charging for the use, and only the use, of money. It is evil. A modern description would be a non-self liquidating loan, or a non-productive loan. Prime examples are government debt and credit card debt.
When someone gets into financial trouble and asks for advice, what is the first thing they tell you? Tear up the credit card. What is causing the destruction of Greece, Spain, Argentina, Japan, etc.... Government debt.
Usury is evil.
Receiving interest on a productive loan, e.g. a corporate bond, is not usury and is perfectly fine.
Let me see... I hate angry hamsters, I hate traffic jams, I hate overpriced waffles, I hate America, I hate lambda Phage, I hate myself...I hate being confused, I hate being banned...
Whenever someone brings out the "you guys all hate America" accusation I start to know that all logical analysis has been lost by whoever throws out that accusation..
I'm also a communist terrorist pineapple thief ? Can we not lovingly criticize our nation in order to nurse it back to health again? Does constructive criticism not build character?
Since there is an active discussion on usury taking place, I thought I might leave this link from Zippy Catholic's blog on subject:
http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-money-on-the-pill/
I think it might provide some excellent food for thought. For example, contrary to the opinion of several of the commentators on this thread Zippy posits that is immoral to charge interest to recoup opportunity costs since they are not ontologically real objects. Additionally, seemingly contrary to james03, he feels that government debt is not usurious in and of itself.
I'll admit I think a great deal of Zippy's writing and rate him as a fine thinker. Nevertheless, I am not saying that I necessarily agree with his position. Indeed, I am quite uncertain as to what to think. My hope is that in posting this link it will help to foster a discussion to aid me in thinking through his position thoughtfully.
P.S. Please let me know if this should be its own thread. Its not my intention to derail the current conversation
QuoteAdditionally, seemingly contrary to james03, he feels that government debt is not usurious in and of itself.
There are a few exceptions. If you had a bond to build a road backed by the tolls, then it would not be usury. Things like that. I'd say 1% of government bonds are not usury.
I read the Zippy article (skimmed it). He says government debt is not usurious because the medievals held it not to be usury. Weak. Usually the "government" in that case was the king who you didn't want to piss off by condemning his use of usury to fund his hunting palace.
Either usury is wrong, or its not.
Also, he fails to mention where St. Thomas does say you may collect interest on a productive loan.
Quote from: james03 on December 13, 2014, 06:52:49 PM
QuoteFor the record:
Completely useless. Usury is charging for the use, and only the use, of money. It is evil. A modern description would be a non-self liquidating loan, or a non-productive loan. Prime examples are government debt and credit card debt.
When someone gets into financial trouble and asks for advice, what is the first thing they tell you? Tear up the credit card. What is causing the destruction of Greece, Spain, Argentina, Japan, etc.... Government debt.
Usury is evil.
Receiving interest on a productive loan, e.g. a corporate bond, is not usury and is perfectly fine.
Actually it's not useless. Did you read the entire entry? If you read the entire entry you would know that it is entirely useful and applicable to the discussion. It is, afterall, titled "Usury," and I will hold to its definitions rather than your arbitrary ones.
Anyway, if you'd read, the paragraph above the one I copied and pasted actually refutes your reasoning:
"Others with Claudio-Jannet (Le capital, la spéculation et la finance, iii, II and III) distinguish between the loan for consumption and the loan for production: we may ask interest from the borrower who takes money or credit in order to produce or gain money; but not from one who borrows under pressure of necessity, or for some unproductive expenditure. The increased frequency of loans for production considered in the connection with the different extrinsic circumstances would seem to justify the demand for interest on such loans at the present day. In a spirit that is not irreconcilable with the rulings of the Fathers in the matter, this system contains this element of truth, that the lender of a sum of money which is intended for productive use may refuse to lend except on condition of being made a partner in the undertaking, and may claim a fixed interest which represents that share of the profit, which he might reasonably expect to receive. The system, nevertheless, is formally condemned by the Encyclical "Vix pervenit", and contradicts the principle of the just value; it tends in fact to make the borrower pay the special advantage, while the compensation is regulated by the general advantage procured by the possession of a thing, not by the special circumstances of the borrower. Others justify the existing practice by a presumption of extrinsic circumstances, which is confirmed, according to some persons, by the permission of the civil law. This explanation appears to us to be unsatisfactory. The extrinsic circumstances do not always exist, while we can always lend at interest, without any scruple on the score of justice. And what is there to show that modern legislators pass laws merely to quiet men's consciences?"So you are in fact wrong. Interest on loans is not justified based upon productivity. It is based solely on the fact that modern economic conditions are such that tying up one person's money is depriving that person of the opportunity to use that money to make more money. Economic conditions in the past were generally not characterized by widespread opportunity for profitable investments. That is the point of the first paragraph I copied and pasted. And that is why the Holy See has charged interest on loans for the past 100+ years now. It wasn't jews, it wasn't modernists, it was legitimate economic development. It wasn't because the loans were productive. It was "
due entirely to a change in economic matters that require the present system."
Quote from: Catholic Economist on December 14, 2014, 04:15:31 AM
Since there is an active discussion on usury taking place, I thought I might leave this link from Zippy Catholic's blog on subject:
http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-money-on-the-pill/
I think it might provide some excellent food for thought. For example, contrary to the opinion of several of the commentators on this thread Zippy posits that is immoral to charge interest to recoup opportunity costs since they are not ontologically real objects.
Oh, it's not
my opinion, but the opinion of the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Holy See as it existed at the time of its writing. I'll take that and stick with it over the musings of some obscure internet blogger named "Zippy."
I find Credit Cards very useful.
Let's say I am in the US on a business trip and want to extend a trip to New York over a weekend, change my flight back home and stay three more days. Where would I get the cash for that? I am not going to carry around another $1000 in cash just in case. I might lose it.
Where would I get the money to stay the extra time with no credit cards?
How would I have comeback for things I buy on the Internet without Visa, MasterCard, or PayPal? Once a merchant has my money there is not much I can do to force him to refund it.
If I am stupid enough to spend money I can't pay back the next month then that is my fault. One has to look at the cost of money, just as one has to consider the cost of everything else in life.
I can buy a Bentley or M-class Merc and find that the parts and servicing nudge gas mileage far outweigh the utility value of the car to get from A to B. On the other hand, by driving a car like this I might convince a CEO to do business with my firm because it gives him confidence that I must be doing something right, in order to afford a car like this. The profit from just one contract might pay for the higher costs of running a luxury car several times over.
If I work as a nurse, it is stupid to buy a luxury car. If I work as a real estate salesperson and drive my customers to view expensive properties it probably makes economic sense.
Primarily, the responsibility to weigh up the costs of borrowing versus the utility and future value rests with the borrower. Just as it does with the purchaser of cars, houses or anything else.
The costs of a loan and the possible outcomes are pretty easy to understand by all but the most stupid people. People with a modicum of intelligence and common sense can assess the risks, decide what they can tolerate and borrow when they need to. Lenders can lend on the same basis.
I would never borrow from a PayDay lender, because I will never need to, but some people do. They are adults, the rates and fees are clear enough. Let adults be adults and not protect people from their own stupidity.
QuoteIt is based solely on the fact that modern economic conditions are such that tying up one person's money is depriving that person of the opportunity to use that money to make more money. Economic conditions in the past were generally not characterized by widespread opportunity for profitable investments.
You do realize, don't you, that in your attempt to counter my argument you use my argument by the term "profitable investments"? I stipulate: you may receive a fair share in the gain from a loan. That is not usury.
Usury has nothing to do with profit. It is charging for the use of money on a non-productive loan.
Why is it the lender's business whether the loan is profitable or not?
They still lose the utility of the money regardless.
If you don't believe the loan is going to be profitable, then don't borrow. I don't see why the lender is to blame here.
Quote from: Greg on December 14, 2014, 10:30:34 PM
Why is it the lender's business whether the loan is profitable or not?
They still lose the utility of the money regardless.
If you don't believe the loan is going to be profitable, then don't borrow. I don't see why the lender is to blame here.
Because rich people are bad and poor people are saints.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
QuoteWhy is it the lender's business whether the loan is profitable or not?
Why is it the pimps business whether the prostitute fornicates or not? He just takes the money and makes some phone calls. That argument goes no where.
But go back a read what you wrote: Why is it the lender's business whether the loan is profitable or not?
In the old days, that was the bankers job, to find profitable loans. And I have no problem with banks making profitable investments in productive activities.
I do have a problem with credit card debt and government debt. The real world confirms that these end badly, so theory matches actual results. Usury offends Prudence. You are claiming an increase, when there is no increase. When you defy reason, it will always end badly.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Apart from a house, and maybe college if you live in the US, nobody is forced to borrow money, ever. It is a choice.
Home and college loans are at reasonable rates, not much higher than inflation, if indeed higher at all.
You enter into a contract where the cost of borrowing can easily be worked out on cheap computer.
Like many other things there is amount of risk. You can drive a car badly or drive it well, you can maintain it or neglect it. If you come off a mountain bend however I would assume it is your fault not the car makers.
Why is usury any more immoral than insurance premiums? One takes a calculated risk. The insurance company spreads the risk and adds a fat premium. Often it re-insures the risks and only has the premium on its books or net profit. How is that any different than a lender?
Bankers never found profitable loans. They found low risk loans. As long as the profit would pay of the loan plus interest they did not care about the profitability.
No banker would lend to a dot com company like Apple Inc or Ebay.com. Yet these companies are fabulously profitable. Banks simply cannot take risk like that onto their balance sheet.
So the VC lenders do lend at very high rates of interest.
If you need a car repaired to get to work and have maxed out your credit at the bank then 30 percent APR on a CC is reasonable, because you are a fiscal idiot. You need to get to work to get paid so even an expensive tyre is worth it. A smart person would have a few thousand in savings to pay for foreseeable emergencies to avoid borrowing on a CC.
If the credit card lenders won't lend you money at 30 % APR then you really are a bad risk and only the PayDay lender's business model can cope with your disorganisation and poor money skills. Only they can chase you which is the only way to ever get paid back by utter bottom dwelling fiscal idiots. You have to pay for that hand holding and wet nursing.
Prostitution is always immoral, so is a lousy analogy.
A better analogy is selling aspirin or alcohol. Most uses of these are moral. Should you as the seller have a responsibility to ensure each adult is not intending to overdose or get blind drunk? Should the law restrict purchasers of aspirin to one packet or buyers of booze to 1 bottle?
No, the onus should be on the buyer to use aspirin, booze and financial loan products responsibly.
Quote from: Greg on December 14, 2014, 10:52:37 PM
Like many other things there is amount of risk. You can drive a car badly or drive it well, you can maintain it or neglect it. If you come off a mountain bend however I would assume it is your fault not the car makers.
Why is usury any more immoral than insurance premiums? One takes a calculated risk. The insurance company spreads the risk and adds a fat premium. Often it re-insures the risks and only has the premium on its books or net profit. How is that any different than a lender?
To play devil's advocate for a moment: Why should lenders expect risk premiums on loans?
I mean I think we can all agree that if a borrower actually defaults, then the lender is in good standing to take some type of action to reimburse himself (e.g. by seizing assets). However, charging a risk premium entails extracting rents from an individual because of something they
may do. Somehow it doesn't seem particularly just to charge someone a fee for something they haven't actually done.
Of course, one reasonable response to this is that many of the people who are charged higher interest rates on loans have in fact abused debt in the past. But to abstract from this, perhaps consider the case of a young, hard-working man fresh out of university who has no identifiable credit history.
Some young male drivers are super safe. Why is it fair to charge them high premiums when they have not had a crash yet?
Answer: because an unknown risk is still a risk.
Many borrowers don't have realisable assets. By the time you've paid the repo man there is zero profit in repossessing their junk.
Quote from: Greg on December 14, 2014, 11:20:45 PM
Some young male drivers are super safe. Why is it fair to charge them high premiums when they have not had a crash yet?
Putting my devil's advocate hat on again: It is isn't fair. A risk premium is a risk premium whether its being charged by an insurer or a lender.
Quote
Answer: because an unknown risk is still a risk.
Many borrowers don't have realizable assets. By the time you've paid the repo man there is zero profit in repossessing their junk.
Understandable, says the devil's advocate; but then again you have the choice not to lend to them, rather than unjustly charge them a fee for something they haven't done.
So come up with a system that is fair and still profitable, sell the insurance and make yourself a fortune.
There would be a HUGE demand as premiums for young drivers are very high the world over. You could simply insure all of the safe young drivers and leave the reckless and inattentive ones to your competitors.
If there is any validity to your argument then this is a huge business opportunity and very easy to patent the risk formula for and demonstrate statistically.
Same for loans. Simply find all of the honest and trustworthy borrowers and lend to them. I am still not clear on how you will repossess their assets when you make a mistake or they lie on the application form and defraud you but perhaps you have an alternative legal system too???
Quote from: Kaesekopf on December 14, 2014, 10:32:35 PM
Quote from: Greg on December 14, 2014, 10:30:34 PM
Why is it the lender's business whether the loan is profitable or not?
They still lose the utility of the money regardless.
If you don't believe the loan is going to be profitable, then don't borrow. I don't see why the lender is to blame here.
Because rich people are bad and poor people are saints.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
+1
Quote from: Akavit on December 10, 2014, 06:42:47 PM
So you're referring to practices such as local banks taking on loans then immediately reselling to Fannie May?
Amongst other things, yes, the buying and selling of debt or rather the obligation to repay underlying the debt. When its what underlies almost every big corporate transaction and government project in the world its a tad worrying and unrealistic. Surely a world which never lives within its means can't be particularly healthy? I can almost guarantee that every single big merger or acquisition in the last few decades has been financed, to a large degree, by loans and the same goes, to a lesser extent, for a great deal of government projects. It's simply not healthy, particularly when the sums are so large as to become ridiculous e.g. how much is $1 trillion, what does that actually mean? There isn't even $1 trillion worth of gold in the world and there probably isn't even $1 trillion worth of other precious metals or stones either. With such large sums money and debt becomes just long lists of numbers, it has no actual real world application or implications, because no government or company will ever have $1 trillion worth of assets, except perhaps through debts others owe them...
Who the heck wants metals? What they heck do you do with them?
People 1000 years ago spent their waking day seeking metals out of the ground because that was the underpinning of the people economic system.
Today, I spend much of my waking hours using LinkedIn to connect to new people and sell them technology to improve their business or set up meetings for CEOs of other companies.
I don't even think about gold or precious stones. What good are they?
There might not be a trillion dollars worth of metals and stones, but there are easily a trillion dollars worth of corporations. If LinkedIn or Google disappeared it would make a much larger difference to most business people's lives than gold going to 2000 dollars per ounce or down to 200.