I think payday loans would fall into the category of usury - taking advantage of people who need money right away by charging an obscene rate of interest to pay back.Because if it is, I suspect my credit card company is guilty of it.
33% interest rate is more than just a little debilitating. I got unemployed, got behind, and now I’m losing my behind.
It would be Lawful to make a specific charge for inflation, but not to routinely charge interest. the inflation charge to comply with the Law, needs to be exactly indexed to the change in value of the principle over the duration of the loan. As I said, this is still not interest.Those who point to ancient teachings forbidding the charging of interest should, as usual, look at the CONTEXT of the teaching. In those days, there was no such thing as INFLATION. The economies simply worked differently. Since the economies of the day used barter for necessities instead of currency currency was mainly a means of storing excess wealth. In that light it makes perfect sense to say that it was sinful to charge another interest when he borrows money that you otherwise had no use for at the time anyways and the returned amount still had the same buying power as when it was borrowed!
So the teaching hasn’t changed, economics has changed.
In contrast, today money is the standard unit of exchange. Just try and go into Walmart and see if they will let you have that cart of groceries in exchange for two chickens and a goat! Because of this change and inflation, there is a reasonable and just amount of interest that can be charged that balances the benefit to BOTH the lender AND the borrower (such as my mortgage). That is not usury. Credit card companies, rent-to-own places and pawn shops on the other hand… not so sure! Sounds like usury to me!
In the synoptic Gospels, yes, he appears to have specifically targetted the money changers outside the temple. But in the Gospel of John he appears to be targetting the occupants, criticizing them for turning the temple into a market.Did not Our Lord condemn those Pharisees, (Jews), who using their tradition, turned the Law of Moses, which He equated with the commandments of G_d, on its head.
No disrespect, but I do not see that as an option open to me. I accept that I am part of an apostolic Church with the Gift of Authority.The tradition of the Catholic church should be seen with caution.
Small ‘t’ mark you.
And plenty of Protestant Reformationists would agree with you. However, the problem for me is interpretation. For example, in the case of Jesus and the money changers, how can I be certain of the true core of the dispute. For example, was it simply charging a fee for the change of currency? Or was it a dispute over exploitive practices in, say, his followers buying a mandatory paschal lamb? Or, as some readers of Mark have suggested, was this just another example of Jesus condemning the entire cultic system?Where there is conflict, I defer to the GOSPEL, as should the Church.
Nope. Your argument holds no water in other than a fundamentalist, literalist sense. When I take a mortgage to buy my house, I BENEFIT because I am able to use the wealth of another to invest in an appreciating asset that also happens to be a necessity. If the world worked by YOUR interpretation, nobody would be able to GET a mortgage because investors would be fools to lend, they’d simply invest their money in another sort of business enterprise that offered an actual return. By your rule, the borrower would benefit greatly from the loan, but the lender would receive nothing. Its common sense that a business transaction should ideally benefit BOTH parties. Only when both parties ultimately benefit can that economic system perpetuate itself.It would be Lawful to make a specific charge for inflation, but not to routinely charge interest. the inflation charge to comply with the Law, needs to be exactly indexed to the change in value of the principle over the duration of the loan. As I said, this is still not interest.
Set-up, and closure charges, being administration costs are also Lawful.
This is a FUNDAMENTAList point.Nope. Your argument holds no water in other than a fundamentalist, literalist sense. When I take a mortgage to buy my house, I BENEFIT because I am able to use the wealth of another to invest in an appreciating asset that also happens to be a necessity. If the world worked by YOUR interpretation, nobody would be able to GET a mortgage because investors would be fools to lend, they’d simply invest their money in another sort of business enterprise that offered an actual return. By your rule, the borrower would benefit greatly from the loan, but the lender would receive nothing. Its common sense that a business transaction should ideally benefit BOTH parties. Only when both parties ultimately benefit can that economic system perpetuate itself.
I did explain how an Islamic mortgage worked, and the lender can thereby make an honest and Lawful profit.Balanced, fair lending practices are one of the largest reasons for the explosion and historically quite well shared wealth in the western world. Conversely, where there is NOT widely available mutually beneficial lending (notably the Islamic world and parts of the far east), there is much more concentration of wealth at the very top and much more abject poverty. If you can’t borrow to start a business or buy a house, you just can’t get OUT of poverty. And anyone who says the rich ought to lend to the poor at absolutely NO benefit to themselves hasn’t studied human nature much.
Methinks Thou seest what is not, and seest not what is.Methinks God is smarter than you seem to give Him credit for.
How is the gold standard an “honest money” situation?However, consider the honest money situation, eg Gold standard.
If the GNP doubles, trade (name removed by moderator)ut will double the gold supply.How is the gold standard an “honest money” situation?
Suppose that there is a fixed amount of gold to back the money supply.
The money supply represents and stands in for, all the goods and services produced by a nation—the gross national product. Rather than bartering, we let money stand in for our labor and our goods.
Now ideally, one hopes for rising production and rising productivity. Let’s say that over time, the GNP doubles.
You have gone all around the houses to say the same thing.Let the daily wages of, say, 100 workers, stand for the GNP. You’ve got 100 gold coins. Each worker gets 1 coin in payment. Now you get 100 more workers with the same money supply and each must get paid for a day’s wages. Now each worker only gets ½ a coin. Since the ½ coin represents the same value in either case, your currency has deflated: Now, it takes only half as much money to stand in for the same amount of work (or goods.)
And deflation tends to lead to recession or depression because the inadequate money supply hinders economic growth.
What would you prefer?Now, one could in theory mine more gold to keep up with an increasing GNP. But it probably wouldn’t keep up, and there would be a point of no return.
I have specificly allowed that a charge to take inflation into account is Lawful, however, there is cause to believe that even this will add to inflation.Fundamentalist interpretations are ones that ignore context. Prohibitions against charging interest all came in an economic context in which inflation was an unknown factor. Therefore, it becomes a question for the Magesterium to interpret whether there is a just level of interest that can be charged in an economic system that includes inflation because the assumptions underlying the question have changed.
The Phariseees no doubt made the same claim, as they sat on the seat of Moses, or so they claimed, and Our Lord accepted this claim.This is why Jesus left us with 12 apostles holding the Keys of the Kingdom, rather than just a thick scroll.
Exactly, and I don’t see how using gold is any better than using bread, beer, or a set amount of lead sunk into the sea. It is not the gold or silver which backs the money supply, it is the GNP.What would you prefer?
Beer standard,
Bread standard,
Energy standard.
It does not matter.
Money purports to represent value.
No, but a hand full of silver is much more convenient than a cart full of potatoes, which wil rot if not wanted in barter.Exactly, and I don’t see how using gold is any better than using bread, beer, or a set amount of lead sunk into the sea. It is not the gold or silver which backs the money supply, it is the GNP.
The theory of the gold standard was that all international trade be carried out in gold. Thus if your GNP goes up, then goods available for trade likewise increase, so gold koffers are filled, and the money supply grows.If the money supply exactly kept pace with the GNP, both upwards and downwards, the money would be stable: there would be just enough money to stand in for all the goods and services produced, no more, no less.
I have already explained the mechanics of the Islamic mortgage.As for interest, I don’t see how I or anyone else, should be expected to lend, say, $200,000 to another for the construction of a house, with no compensation whatsoever. How is that just?
I also recall a parable where a servant about to be dismissed for dishonesty, went to further dishonest lengths to secure his place among rogues. Our Lord also praised his wisdom.Keep in mind the parable in which Jesus praises the servants who invested and increased the money they were given, and condemns the one who buried it in the ground, obtaining no return.
And of course, paper money is more convenient than lugging around silver, and electronic debits and credits are even more convenient than paper money at times.No, but a hand full of silver is much more convenient than a cart full of potatoes, which wil rot if not wanted in barter.
This is true in an ideal world.And of course, paper money is more convenient than lugging around silver, and electronic debits and credits are even more convenient than paper money at times.
Actually, we are much better off with our current monetary system than we would ever be under the gold standard.This is true in an ideal world.
However, it is much more difficult for corrupt government to ‘print’ silver or gold, that it is to print paper, or virtual paper. Thus the gold standard is a more honest money.
This may be true while we have a government we can trust in these matters, but if you lived for instance in Zimbabwe . . . .Actually, we are much better off with our current monetary system than we would ever be under the gold standard.