On Usury..
Try this, and get back to me (zoho - john.forster) if you have other sound wisdom about this interest thing. The first 40 years I was studying the Bible I had no definite idea about interest and taxes. In these last two years, I think I have some answers.
John Calvin, although he can be quoted as dissing the Law Books of the Bible as being directly applicable to the various non-Israelite nations, applied Exodus/Deuteronomy left & right with abandon in his commentaries. Yet on usury/interest he was conflicted and indefinite. He saw the verses on not charging interest to a poor brother in the faith (unbelievers were OK), and that some verses seem to say don't charge interest at all.
He acknowledges that the entire history of the Christian community up to that time looked on usury as a really destructive sin, maybe even a crime. Yet he knew that God reveals great freedom of family property rights, and if someone wanted to make a mutual contract for rental of property or money, or any possession, the law should not punish their receiving compensation for the loss of use of their property during the time of the loan. How do you have freedom of personal property, [laissez-fair "let [them] do"] and still define, or condemn usury? Tough nut to crack.
Interesting to further research someday, (not for the purpose of besmirching Calvin, but more for calling out our responsibility to shun the modern usurers and their below-inflation interest rates) Calvin's relationships with the Fuggers (I'm not making this up). This was a family of financiers who either heavily contributed to Calvin's publishing outreach, or loaned him money for publications. This name comes up as potentially part of the banker-elites that were manipulating civil and church governments & law for their own profits in the 16th century. Maybe they encouraged him gently to take it easy on getting too specific applying the Scriptures to loans and banking. The potential influence of these money lenders on Calvin's opinions is speculation on my part, but his writings did open the gates to sanitizing taking interest on loans, which stopped the centuries-long ban by Christians and Muslims.
(the Fuggers also come up in biographies on Luther, I think in Metaxas's recent bio, and in Daubinge's work:
It is very clear in Calvin's commentary on Deuteronomy, that if there was a distinction between condemned usury, and authorized interest on loans, that the difference could only lie in Usury being too much interest. Which is a surprising conclusion for someone as intellectually sharp as Calvin. If true, the Bible would have revealed the dividing-line number. At what percent-interest does it become sin or crime?
So far, I am convinced that interest and usury are interchangeable words, and they cannot be distinguished by amount. I am persuaded it is a sin, but not a crime bystanders are responsible to punish, when you charge interest to a brother in covenant for anything loaned. There are no moral faults in charging interest to someone outside the covenant, if you keep all your promises. This harnesses slavery as an evangelistic tool. But there is a way to fulfill the investment wisdom of the stewardship parable, that will look similar to charging interest, but still honors God's person and providence, and does not violate the standing prohibition against forcing interest from a Brother.
I think the answer lies in seeing how Venture Capital, and refusal of the "security" principle resolves the apparent dilemma. You can't charge interest to a brother in the faith, but what if you want to go into business/partnership with him. He has the money, you have the energy/brains/vision (whatever) or vice versa. You can still forge an agreement and apportion the gain or loss from your joint venture proportionately according to your mutual agreement on the value of respective contribution to the venture. This would work with rich or poor partners, acknowledges that Almighty God ultimately controls your prosperity or poverty and doesn't leave either partner in a debt-slave relationship if the venture loses.
Proverbs 22:26 KJV Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts.
ESV Be not one of those who give pledges,
who put up security for debts.
NASB Do not be among those who give pledges,
Among those who become guarantors for debts.
Prov 17:18 NASB
A man lacking in sense pledges
And becomes guarantor in the presence of his neighbor.
Usury, and the current interest-on-deposits & loans today, is a "striking hands", "going surety" relationship, where bank or borrower is promising to pay rent/interest on the money whether the purpose he borrowed it for results in "increase" or not. There is a "security" about the contract. You will pay interest no matter what.
If someone comes to you to borrow money (or anything), he will be rich or poor. If he is poor, he is having trouble getting sufficient return on his labor to trade for food or clothes, shelter, basic necessities of life. If you loan him anything and he consumes it, he is worse off than before -- interest on the loan or not. Probably the first good/compassionate thing you can do for him is to provide, help, or encourage, getting him into a servant/employee relationship to exchange what he can do for what he needs. This would be much easier if the national government wasn't the only legal slave-owner (now that slaves have been "freed" since Dec 1865). If I take one of the government's slaves into my home to help around the estate in exchange for basic needs (or any compensation), I am going to get punished if I don't pay the "rent/tribute" on that slave. All hell breaks loose, legally, on me The Compassionate One if I don't forward the minimum remittance-per-hour with his Slave Security Number (FICA, FUTA, SUTA) to the FEATHA/IRS (department of From Each According To His Need). This is partly why minimum wage parameters need to be obliterated.
Sometimes, of course, there can be emergencies where there is nothing for it, but just to give a destitute man your own property you have a right to give. But, in general, you, God, the poor guy, and his family - are all in favor of him regaining that ConditionNormal enjoined in Ephesians 4:28:(NASB)
28 He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need.
The Laws of God governing master/slave employer/employee relationships, property rights, usury and interest, security, and covenants -- when you consider the broad picture -- go the farthest in raising men back up to normal, responsible, economic inter-dependence, freedom, dignity, and relative prosperity.
So you could give him money, as the handy way for him to most easily trade for his needs to get through the next day, or until he can position his appeal to the next potential supporter.
Or you can offer to trade money, or direct food/clothes for what he can give you (labor/service). This still leaves him in a dependent relationship, and both of you may be perfectly happy with that. The Law of God makes provision for that, though it has been illegal in the US since 1865. But you may not have an estate/business situation where you can employ his services directly.
Beyond this, you could craft a covenant with him to take your capital (money, tools) to amplify his other assets (skills/labor) to provide goods and services for others. You could loan him a car to look for work, money to buy a tool he could use to get a job or provide a service he couldn't do otherwise, give him seed for planting, etc. The agreement would hope that after returning the principle of what you had loaned him, there would be increase because you gave up the use of your asset and allowed him to use it. In your contract with him, you acknowledge that God has completely controlled that increase, or loss, that your venture experiences. The contract can apportion how the gain or loss will be apportioned between the parties. You will have increase on the risk and non-use of your money over time, He will have his share of the increase of his labor which can help provide for his needs better than if you had not had a covenant.
For example, let's imagine a scenario where, with your asset (money/tools) he can go out and mix his part with it and, in a period of time, realize and increase something like 30% more per annum than he could have realized just on the trade of his bare labor alone. Perhaps you could have realized a 10% increase if you had invested it elsewhere. Your laborer/borrower friend might be happy to contract with you to gamble on getting the 30% increase and splitting it with you 50-50, in which case you make out better than if you had invested it elsewhere.
But, what if the venture fails? You might lose and earn less than the 10% you might have received in an alternate investment, or you could even lose some principle. Your partner would also lose proportionately, according to the partitions of the contract. An alternative would be, that you could have just given him money for his maintenance, or invested your capital at 10% and just given him the 10% -- but then he would not have his heart in the vested interest of his venture. Your mutual interest in the success of your project can inspire each to both receive and give wise counsel from Men, as well as an ear to God's Word to seek His favor towards your daily bread.
This concept could be applied for the main things we borrow money from banks these days. Presumably, there is considered more value to borrow money at interest in order to buy a home now, instead of saving up to buy it later. This increased difference might be quantified into a contract with a private venture partner, who could put up money, with the rental/resale value calculated in. The dweller profits from decreased "rent" and possible proceeds from the disposition. The capital partner would have a profit schedule for his benefit as well. Yet the entire project may not turn out to be a benefit to the partners. They may not realize increase on the venture, but things could be structured such that no one is the slave of the other, nor are they presuming on the disposition of a providential God.
The security of it, the guarantee of interest paid on loans could be avoided in covenants. Yet, even if usury is practiced, and that toward a brother in the faith, it looks like a sin, but not a crime. There are not civil punishments listed, and it does not seem a coercion or a theft. If so, then God will punish in His own time and way, but He has not authorized the civil magistrate to take away life, liberty, or property from those who charge or agree to pay interest against His will. Ideally then, the People of the Book would police themselves, and not get into subservient relationships themselves, to pay interest to other believers, and especially not to non-believers or corporations. If they violate this, there would be no call for civil punishment, though they would suffer the consequences, including social stigma for volunteering themselves for this kind of slavery.
As I have studied the English history of money and banking, it is evident to me that if the Church had taken the Bible seriously on these matters and avoided these debt relationships, they would have at least strengthened their economic status in their nations, and perhaps provided the necessary culture-wide salt and light (and common sense) influence to prevent the international bankers from seizing the reins of their country's legal, financial, and educational systems. And yet the principle of personal property is upheld, I would think, to the satisfaction of the Libertarians, with all men free (in regards to civil law), to shoot themselves in the foot by risking their capital and possible entrapment in debt-slave relationships to men.
It is fair to say, that in this system, the Christian could contract for interest/usury from the non-believer. This could frequently place the borrower in a servant/slave relationship to the Believer. In the Biblical model, that person becomes part of the household and under the authority of a master, part of whose responsibilities would be to catechize the household in the teaching of the Bible on service, labor, and property. That servant would be exposed to the teaching, that if he swore into the Biblical covenant, that would set up a limitation on his servitude to 6 years (if not "worked off" prior), with the prospect that his master would furnish assistance, upon manumission, with seed capital to be financially independent.
I cannot think of a more elegant solution to our profusion of bank-crime and labor problems than these applications of God's law.
What am I missing? How can I make this more Biblical?
Zoho email is john.forster
More notes have come to light since the original writing.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1451688563/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+Richest+Man+Who+Ever+Lived+Steinmetz&qid=1572324408&sr=8-1
The Richest Man Who Ever Lived: The Life and Times of Jacob Fugger (Paperback)
by Greg Steinmetz (Author)
Jakob Fugger II (1459-1525)
Occupation: BankerSource of wealth: Money managementAssets: Mines, silk factoriesClaim to fame: Nicknamed "Fugger the Rich"
"The king reigns, but the bank rules!" declared Jakob Fugger II of Augsburg, Germany. He was known as "Fugger the Rich," and minted his own money and maintained banks in every European capital. Fugger and his family also owned silver, gold and copper mines, traded spices and wool, and operated silk factories in Asia. Fugger held the contract for managing the pope's money and collecting cash for the remission of sins, and he bankrolled Charles V's election as Holy Roman Emperor, which involved bribes of sums three times the annual revenue of Florence. Fugger, like other powerful figures at the time, commissioned bronze "portrait medals" of himself -- coins with his own picture on them -- and handed them out to his friends. Fugger was said to have hired a personal fortuneteller to predict the outcomes of his business deals; he died leaving two million guilders, or more than seven tons of gold.
http://interactive.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/mill-1-timeline-fugger.htm
from http://www.mindcontagion.org/banking/hb1565.html
Monetary policy played a role in the English Revolution in 1642, when Oliver Cromwell was financed by bankers to overthrow King Charles.
1487
Germany
The Fuggers a German banking dynasty make their first loan to the Archduke of Habsburg, taking as security an interest in silver and copper mines in the Tirol. This was the beginning of an extensive family involvement in mining and precious metals.
1491 The Fuggers make a loan to Maximilian.
1515 Paris's Jean Gerson and Tubingen's Conrad Summenhardt, Gabriel Biel and John Eck argued that usury occurred only when the lender intended to oppress the borrower. Eck, supported by the Fugger banking family, became famous for his book Tractates contractu quinque de centum, defending five percent as a harmless and therefore legal rate of interest as long as the loan was for a bona fide business opportunity. For these nominalists the proper measure of usury was the intent of the borrower and lender. If they were in charity with one another the loan was licit.
1519 One of the largest Fugger projects is the loan of 533,000 florins to Charles the grandson of Maximillian. Charles raised a total of 852,000 florins which was spent bribing the seven electors who elected the candidate as Charles V.
1536 John Calvin halts the ban on usury
1545 John Calvin's letter on usury made it clear that when Christ said "lend hoping for nothing in return," He meant that we should help the poor freely. Following the rule of equity, we should judge people by their circumstances, not by legal definitions. Humanist that he was, Calvin knew there were two Hebrew words translated as "usury." One, neshek, meant "to bite"; the other, tarbit, meant "to take legitimate increase." Based on these distinctions, Calvin argued that only "biting" loans were forbidden. Thus, one could lend at interest to business people who would make a profit using the money. To the working poor one could lend without interest, but expect the loan to be repaid. To the impoverished one should give without expecting repayment.
1743
Germany
Amshall Moses Bower opened a counting house in Frankfurt Germany. The sign hung over the door had a Roman eagle on a red shield prompting people to call his shop the Red Shield Firm pronounced in German as "Rothschild". His son later changed his name to Rothschild when he inherited the business.
1744
Italy, Rome
Scipio Maffei set off a debate with his three-volume defense of lending at interest, in which he suggested usury at moderate rates was not illicit, even if it was not charitable. This assertion was condemned by a papal encyclical, Vix Pervenit, in 1745.
1781
The Continental Congress was desperate for funds and met at Independence Hall. They appointed Robert Morris (an arms dealer), to head the "Bank of North America", which was to be closely modeled after the Bank of England.
The charter [of the Bank of North America] called for private investors to put up $400,000.00 Capital as the initial investment. But when Robert Morris was unable to raise the capital he used his political influence to have Gold that had been loaned to America by France to be deposited in the bank. Then he loaned this money to himself and his friends to "re-invest" in shares of the bank. The bank held a monopoly over the National Currency. From the period of 1781 to 1785 the value of American Currency dropped and the banks charter was not renewed. The effort to kill the Bank of North America was lead by William Findley.
"The institution, having no principle but that of avarice, will never be varied in it's object...to engross all the wealth, power and influence of the state". — William Findley
1787 England Jeremy Bentham wrote, in his Defence of Usury, in which he proclaimed a laissez-faire position, and introduced his concept of utility, urging "that no man of ripe years and of sound mind, acting freely, and with his eyes open, ought to be hindered, with a view to his advantage, from making such bargain, in the way of obtaining money, as he thinks fit: nor, (what is a necessary consequence) any body hindered from supplying him, upon any terms he thinks proper to accede to." Bentham's argument, written against proposed legislation in the Irish Parliament, won out in the English Parliament, which abolished the law against usury.
1834 The House voted against re-chartering the bank. Then this was followed up by an investigation into whether the bank had caused the crash. When the investigators arrived with subpoenas to get the evidence from Nicholas Biddle, they were denied any information. They were also refused information concerning money he had given to congressmen prior to the vote, and he refused to testify before the committee.
1935
Jackson paid off the final installment on the national debt. He was the first and only president to ever do this.
Official Version
On January 30, 1835 an unsuccessful attack occurred in the United States Capitol Building; it was the first assassination attempt made against an American President. One Richard Lawrence approached Jackson and fired two pistols, which both misfired. Jackson proceeded to attack Lawrence with his cane, prompting his aides to restrain him. As a result, Jackson's statue in the Capitol Rotunda is placed in front of the doorway in which the attempt occurred. Lawrence was later found to be mentally ill. [2]
Lawrence was brought to trial on April 11, 1835. The prosecuting attorney was Francis Scott Key. After only five minutes of deliberation, the jury found Lawrence not guilty by reason of insanity. After being interred in several institutions and hospitals during the years after his conviction, in 1855 Lawrence was finally committed to the newly opened Government Hospital for the Insane in Washington, DC, where he remained until his death in 1861. (This institution was later renamed St. Elizabeths Hospital, and is where another would-be presidential assassin -- John Hinckley, Jr. -- was committed after his trial for unsuccessfully attempting to kill President Ronald Reagan in 1981.) As with later assassinations, there would be speculation that Lawrence was part of a conspiracy. While nobody denied Lawrence's involvement, many people, including Jackson, believed that he may have been supported by Jackson's political enemies. However, all subsequent evidence indicates that Lawrence acted alone.
1861
The US was in the throws of a civil war. President Abraham Lincoln needed money for the war and went with his Secretary of the Treasury Solomon P. Chase, to get loans. The banks offered the Union loans with a 24 to 36% interest. Lincoln refused.
An old friend of Lincoln's, Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago was put in charge of solving the problem of how to finance the war. His solution is recorded as this.
"Just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also." — Colonel Dick Taylor
1862 "The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. -- The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government's greatest creative opportunity. -- By the adoption of these principles... the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity." — Abraham Lincoln
1864 The Tsar of Russia, Alexander II was refusing to allow a central bank in Russia.
1865 "If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." — Hazard Circular (England)
1876 And also this quote: "It is not to be doubted, I know of absolute certainty that the division of the United States into two federations of equal power was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained as one block and were to develop as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset the capitalist domination of Europe over the world." - Otto von Bismark Chancellor of Germany
1877 "It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious Press, as will oppose the greenback issue of paper money and that you will also withhold patronage from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money. To repeal the Act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation the government issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders. See your congressman at once and engage him to support our interest that we may control legislation." — James Buel American Bankers Association [1 Senator Daniel of Virginia, May 22, 1890, from a speech in Congress, to be found in the Congressional Record, page 5128, quoting from the Bankers Magazine of August, 1873]
"In 1872 silver being demonetized in Germany, England, and Holland, a capital of 100,000 pounds ($500,000.00) was raised, Ernest Seyd was sent to this country with this fund as agent for foreign bond holders to effect the same object (demonetizations of silver)". — Senator Daniel of Virginia [1]
"On Sept 1st, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On Sept 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price... Then the farmers will become tenants as in England..." — 1891 American Bankers Association as printed in the Congressional Record of April 29, 1913
on taxes
1895 In the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., an attorney named Joseph H. Choate persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court declare an income tax approved by Congress unconstitutional. As a result the United States did not institute an income tax until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913
"The act of Congress which we are impugning before you is communist in its purposes and tendencies and is defended here upon principles as communistic, as socialistic, what shall I call them, as populistic as ever have been addressed to any political assembly in the world." — Joseph H. Choate in his address to the Supreme Court
1907 "All this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven men like J. P. Morgan to handle the affairs of our country." — Woodrow Wilson
1914
Congress ratifies the 16th Amendment creating the Internal Revenue Service. The amendment was proposed in Congress by Senator Nelson Aldrich.
As presented the income tax would only be one percent of income under $20,000, with the assurance that it would never increase.
1921 The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is founded by Edward Mandell House, who had been the chief advisor of President Woodrow Wilson
1929 "It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence... The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all." - Rep. Louis T. McFadden (D-PA)
"The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933."- Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist
1931 Great Britain and 40 other nations abandon the gold standard for currency in order to devalue their currencies and expand their money supply; Hoover and Congress refuse to do likewise.
1932
Herr Unterguggenberger, mayor of the Austrian town of Worgl, decided to do something about the 35 percent unemployment of his constituency (typicalfor most of Europe at the time). He convinced the town hall to issue 14,000 Austrian shillings' worth of "stamp scrip," which were covered by exactly the same amount of ordinary shillings deposited in a local bank.
After two years, Worgl became the first Austrian city to achieve full employment. Water distribution was generalized throughout, all of the town was repaved, most houses were repaired and repainted, taxes were being paid early, and forests around the city were replanted.
It is important to recognize that the major impact of this approach did not derive from the initial project launched by the city, but instead had its origin in the numerous individual initiatives taken in the process of recirculating the local currency instead of hoarding it. On the average, the velocity of circulation of the Worgl money was about fourteen times higher than the normal Austrian shillings. In other words, on the average, the same amount of money created fourteen times more jobs.
More than 200 other Austrian communities decided to copy this example, but in the US the president blocked the process. A legal appeal was made all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was lost.
Top tax rate is raised from 25 to 63 percent.
1933 Senator Bankhead of Alabama presented a bill to the Senate February 18, and Representative Petenhill of Indiana presented a bill to the House of Representatives on February 22. Their bills were based on research by Irving Fisher of Yale University who analyzed the Worgl case in Austria and published various articles about its success. During this time Irving Fisher approached Dean Acheson, then Undersecretary of the Treasury, to obtain support from the Executive branch for the same idea. Acheson asked the opinion of one of his Harvard professors, who advised him that the system would work but that it would imply strongly decentralized decision making, which he should check out with the President. Soon thereafter, President Roosevelt prohibited any use of "emergency currency" and announced the New Deal.
On April 5, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Presidential order 6102, which required all Americans to deliver all gold coins, gold bullion, and gold certificates to their local Federal Reserve Bank on or before April 28, 1933. Forcing the American people, to turn in all gold at base rate with the exception of rare coins.
June 5, Congress enacted HJR 192 which made all debts, public or private, no longer collectable in gold. Instead, all debts public or private were to be payable in Federal Reserve Notes. Citizens were still able to redeem Federal Reserve Notes in silver.
The order stated that any violators would be fined up to $10,000, imprisoned up to ten years, or both for knowingly violating this order. However the Federal Reserve was permitted to sell gold on the foreign market or to any foreign, non-U.S. citizen, at $35.00 per ounce.
President Roosevelt later disowned himself from the bill claiming to not have read it and his Secretary of the Treasury claimed this was "what the experts wanted"
1936The top tax rate is raised to 79%. Unemployment falls to 16.9%
http://www.mindcontagion.org/banking/hb1936.html
McFadden tried to introduce a bill to cancel the Fed's creation of imaginary money by loans, and allow congress to hold money supply to constant purchasing power of the money unit. He died suddenly of flu.
http://vftonline.org/VFTINC/frn/unabomb9.htm?fbclid=IwAR0zXGiEKI4qBu5t_7nsBVGvBefttHD4tspdPaV0LuR2dF712-w9c3oe5Fw
North on usury and perhaps more Biblical view?
http://vftonline.org/VFTINC/anabaptists/13-4Calvin.htm
http://vftonline.org/VFTINC/anabaptists/13-3Nelson.htm
