Posted on 09/07/2010 7:55:57 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
Last week it was announced that Israel's Bank Hapoalim surprised all the analysts and posted a quarterly net profit of 513 million shekels. In other words, half a billion shekels plus 13 million shekels net profit for three months.
I have nothing against Bank Hapoalim. On the contrary, their commissions are cheaper than the other banks and I am pleased that they are making a lot of money. Everything written in this article pertains to all the large banks.
Something bothered me when I listened to the report of Bank Hapoalim's profits. The bank's economists explained that the surprising increase in profits actually stems from the large reduction in the debts of its loan recipients. In other words, the bank's increased profit is not because it is more efficient, but rather because we, its clients, have been more efficient in paying the bank interest on our loans.
What is the problem with that? Most of the large banks' revenues come from private households. The Mizrachi Tefachot bank, for example, boasts that over 60% of its revenues are from loans and mortgages to private households. They are proud of this fact because loans to private households are considered safe.
As we all know, a private household is not a company Ltd. It consists of people, unlimited. Most of the families in Israel live in chronic overdraft and likely pay a month's salary in interest on their overdrafts annually. Simply put, the huge profits of the banks come from the biting interest paid to them by private households.
Banks have an important role in society by virtue of the fact that they are growth engines. In other words, banks are supposed to give loans to businesses, not to individuals. When an army veteran who wants to establish a business can get a loan from the bank at a reasonable interest rate that will allow him to stand on his own two business feet, return the loan and continue to make money - the bank has done an important service.
In addition, the large banks help us to administer our money. They take a commission for this, which is fine. After all, nobody wants to stand in line and get sacks of money on pay day, like in the old Westerns.
But the banks reap only half their profits from the above admirable services. The big money comes from the "pushovers" who are enticed to take out loans for their household needs or who go into overdraft. The banks do all they can to convince their customers to do just that.
And what is the problem with that?
When the bank makes a loan to a household, it is no longer an engine for growth. Instead, it becomes an engine for servitude. By the way, the interest on a bank loan to a private household is three times higher than the interest on loans to business clients. While the households are safer loans, they are also weaker. And if you are weak, more money can be squeezed out of you.
And what is the problem with that? After all, nobody is forcing people to take loans.
The problem is that it is not Jewish.
What?
It's not Jewish. It is forbidden by the Torah. Read it for yourselves.
"If you lend money to my nation, to the poor person with you, do not be a creditor to him, do not put interest upon him."
And:
"Do not take from him interest and annuity, and you shall fear your G-d, and your brother shall live with you." And:
"You shall not charge interest of your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on any thing from which interest can be taken."
There are many more examples. Interest is a serious prohibition.
Even if the customer chooses to pay interest?
Yes, the prohibition is for both the lender and the borrower. Both the bank and its overdrawn customer transgress the prohibition against interest.
But we saw a rabbinic document on the wall of the bank, called heter iska. Doesn't that solve the Jewish law problems?
And if I serve you a glass of sewage water that has been purified, complete with the authorization of a laboratory - what would you prefer - the purified sewage or authentic spring water?
The heter iska may solve the problem, but it is not in keeping with the original intention of the Torah. Because in truth, there is no business partnership involved here. When a bank makes a loan to a private person, it simply becomes a creditor of a loan with interest.
Does this mean that religious Jews don't go into overdraft?
Not at all. When it comes to national conduct outside the parameters of religion, the religious Jews are just as disconnected from reality - a.k.a. G-d - as are their secular counterparts.
The Torah was given to the Jews so that we would create an all-inclusive culture of liberty based on its tenets - in the Land of Israel. But when we were exiled from our Land, the Torah contracted from a culture to a religion. In the exile, there are no Jewish banks and the Rabbis had to invent all sorts of solutions that would allow the Jews to survive in their unnatural surroundings. The problem is that although we have returned to our Land, we still cling to the laws that were written for the exile and have not yet re-vitalized the Torah of the Land of Israel.
The people who established the State of Israel were not looking for a Jewish model of national conduct. They preferred the European model. That is how the nation that was the harbinger of liberty for the world became the world leader in subjugation to banks.
Do you really expect banks not to take interest?
I expect that they take only commission for services rendered for private customers.
Who would open a bank under those conditions?
A profit of one quarter billion instead of one half a billion is not enough?
And how will we manage without overdraft?
We will gain a full month's salary every year.
And if we need an urgent loan or mortgage?
For that we have free-loan societies. Jews know how to help each other -without interest.
Ping.
Friends of Obama. Yiddish Obama bumper stickers everywhere in 2008. A few Lubbvitchers with menorahs on the roof of their cars with Obama stickers. Sickening.
I don't doubt it for one minute, though it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the article or the topic of this thread.
She’s a one-note troll on every Jewish-related thread.
“A lot of Jewish people voted for Obama, so kill them or let them be killed.”
Yeah, she’s marginally more subtle than that.
Not much, though.
“A lot of Jewish people voted for Obama, so kill them or let them be killed.”
Yeah, she’s marginally more subtle than that.
Not much, though.
In other words, she didn't even bother to read the article?
Scientifically speaking, all water has been sewage. Spring water has just been through a different purification process.
Scientifically speaking, all water has been sewage. Spring water has just been through a different purification process.
are you sure? most Chabadniks are to the right of Reagan and vote that way.
BTs tend to retain their secular outlook on politics.
Some even relish the idea of a Godless culture because it draws such a sharp contrast with yiddishkeit. In other words, it erases the claim of the Christian culture to any moral authority.
B'H
I always understood the Law to be a minimum standard of behavior. The good “rabbis” giving the partnership document for the bank seem to be trolling for the utmost bottom acceptable level.
Sometimes, one has to take a deep breathe, start over, and ask the meaning behind the Law -— it’s to not screw people over with debt, in this instance.
(And no, I am not Jewish, but have a sweet new year.)
The Torah is what it is--the reason the universe was created.
I think we are discussing two different things.
The 613 (or whatever) mitzva vs. the overall Torah.
The 613 mitzvah (what I am calling “the Law”) set a standard of behavior that appears to be a minimum to me. One can always do MORE, and, in fact, is encouraged to do so.
This dalliance around charging interest, for example, appears to violate the spirit of the Law, even if it somehow complies with the Letter (which I don’t think it does).
The Written Torah, the Oral Torah, the commandments of the Sages . . . the Halakhah, the 'Aggadah . . . it's all Torah.
OK, to be more precise: I am talking about the subset of the overall Torah that is the 613 commands.
And getting back to the point of the article: you can theoretically not violate a mitzvah and still do something wrong (or rather, still be able to do better).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.