Posted on 12/02/2012 11:35:39 AM PST by annalex
You are kidding me? Our financial system is based on charging loans without asking what the money is for. That is called "prime rate".
Do you have a useful opinion?
Depends on whether he gave a productive loan or unproductive one. If he loaned money for an enterprise with an upside, and lost, he is not guilty at all. He perhaps should have charged more interest.
And what is the faith...
The faith discussed here is the Catholic faith, the one that teaches the truth.
Good advice. Usury is evil, and Shakespeare is a genius. So is Belloc.
Yes: one devil eats away another. Inflation also eats away at legitimate savings. It is no substitute for abatement of usury AND abatement of inflation in a sensible and free society.
I'm just curious. Where did you get your degree in economics?
Or do you just "feel" things?
No. You made that up.
Interest/usury is the compensation the lender gets for the risk he is taking that he will never get his money back.
The higher the risk, the higher the interest rate.
It's easy to make pronouncements about what other people should do with their money, isn't it.
I have never heard of anyone being forced to take out a loan. Have you? I have never heard of idiots being forced to run up a credit card bill. Have you? I have never heard of idiots being forced to take out a student loan. Have you?
If you can't pay cash for something, you can't afford it.
Thank you. I think, Belloc's point was that usury is an intrinsic evil that all religions abhor, not something prohibited by the Catholic Church for the benefit of Catholics only. That the Holy Scripture prohibits usury is well-known, at least for educated people.
The Church, of course, made the same distinction Belloc makes: charging interest in an entrepreneurial way is OK, charging interest on necessities or when the lender is in duress is not. See Aquinas and Hostiensis, especially, on this.
About as anti-Semitic as the Old Testament, see examples, in post 17 by aimhigh.
Correct; and if in the future we expect an increase, it is moral to charge interest. Otherwise, it is not. Read the article, and then comment please.
Yes, that is the motivation for the lender. We are not discussing whether the lender is motivated by usury, -- often he is, -- but the morality of it. Then the distinctions explained in the article become very relevant, and indeed this is universal morality common to all serious religions.
Well, yes. Often it is our stupidity that makes us fall victims of usury. At other times it is the last resort.
It is by no means lawful to induce a man to lend under a condition of usury: yet it is lawful to borrow for usury from a man who is ready to do so and is a usurer by profession; provided the borrower have a good end in view, such as the relief of his own or another's need. Thus too it is lawful for a man who has fallen among thieves to point out his property to them (which they sin in taking) in order to save his lifeArticle 4. Whether it is lawful to borrow money under a condition of usury?
I have no degree on economics, but I can read and comprehend the material read, and reason upon it.
Inflation does not eat away savings? You must be an economist. Do get a real job, like me.
I read Aquinas and Belloc, and the Holy Bible. I did not make anything up. Also, why is there such interest in my person? Please discuss the article and the ensuing posts. I do.
Interest/usury is...
Not all interest is usury, yet only usury is immoral. Read the article.
anyone being forced to take out a loan
A few posts above, I posted an excerpt from Aquinas. Indeed, in circumstances when one borrows from necessity and is subject to usury as a result, the guilt is not his. However, it does not follow that usury is OK if the victim is a voluntary one. For one thing, since the public policy makes no distinction between usury and legitimate lending at interest, the victims of usury often presume that they are doing a moral thing and borrow when they did not have to. For another, activities that are sinful should perhaps, remain allowed but they surely have to be branded as such. This is the practical conclusion Belloc makes.
You're going to get your wish. We'll all be living under Sharial Law soon, and the Mohommadans agree with you.
That proves how right you are, being on the same page as the Moslems.
My bad. What if he had no insurance.
Also, what are his obligations to the man, period. Does he OWE him this? If so, why, rather than somebody else. We are commanded to charity, but there may be other worthy causes?
I’m not disagreeing that as Christians we would please God to donate the money, or even loan it on the security of the insurance. I’m just saying most of the world is either not Christian or only nominally so, and that while we are here, we are to be in it, but not of it.
My POINT was that interest rates are held artificially LOW due to politics, which makes it impossible for savers to earn a return on their money.
I.E., savers are already living in a ‘mudslime’ like economy whereby their money is pretty much loaned out for free.
Ah, but he may charge interest.
Surely, don’t you think, that if usury were a sin, it would also be a sin for the man taking the usorious loan.
Anyway, loans between two individual may be one thing, but coporate organizations cannot survive under such a principle.
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.