At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.

[Sapiens]

At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.


What is Usury? How does it work? Why is it so harmful? Is it in fact, harmful?

Usury is an abstract concept, a secular abstract concept, that when applied to our physical or concrete reality the practice of Usury transfers wealth from the victim of Usury to the Usurer.

In the Orthodoxy, Usury has been defined as the unlawful or excessive charging of interest. This definition is in fact obfuscation, an obfuscation in order to mislead the victims of Usury to accept the charging of a "fair" rate of interest. I put quotes around the word fair, because as it will become evident to you, the rate of interest is only secondary to the basic and fundamental premise of Usury, which is, that the victim of Usury has no escape once he has been ensnared in an Usurious contract.

In simple words, Usury is no more than a "no-win" game for the victim of Usury, which the only logical thing to do for the victim of Usury is to choose not to play; that is to say, NOT to become a victim of Usury.

In the usual context, Usury is practiced and found in financial matters, but in effect, any contract that the sole outcome is at the discretion, and benefit of one party is a Usurious contract. The Usurer is heavily dependent on his victim's ignorance, because if it was not for his victim's ignorance, the Usurer would have to resort to an alternative method of earning his sustenance.

So successful have become Usurers in our present system of living, and their practice so pervasive, that it permeates each and every aspect of our lives. The Usurers leaving nothing to chance, have gone and developed a system where the ignorant is taught and inculcated with inimical values in preparation for them to readily become victims of Usury. The ignorant, lacking an innate reference point other than their instinct of self-preservation in the event of physical danger, have no defenses against the Usurers' dogmatic and institutionalized system of pedagogy where such inimical conceptual values are instilled on their ignorant victims.

Going further, Usury coupled with unfettered greed leads to the systematic destruction of each and everyone on the planet, including the Usurers themselves. To personify this coupling of Usury with unfettered greed, picture a morbidly obese person inflicted with Gluttony, that is to say someone whom eats themselves to death; and that Ladies and Gentlemen, is our collective destiny if we do not reform our institutions.

Our legal institutions, so firmly ensnared in the Usurers' clutches, cannot be expected to provide Justice or relief for the mass of ignorant victims of Usury that cannot even articulate an affirmative defense.

What to do? It all comes down to you, inform yourself, learn how to fight and defend your rights, teach your children. Learn and know what is your best interest, again, teach your children to know what is in their best interest. The Usurers have no power over you or me other than whatever power you or I are willing to give them.

If you like to know more, please write us an email to join our newsletter at againstusury@yahoo.com

As always, wishing you the best for you and your family,

-Sapiens

[ricket]

Re: At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.

At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.

I myself have begun a practice of "civil disobedience". I refuse to take part in any credit transactions with a bank unless I can either pay for the item 100% in cash or I receive a 0% loan. If a bank wants to argue for the interest, I walk away from the deal because I know it is mathematically impossible to fulfill such a contract.

Eventually, the banks will eat themselves alive from the inside out. As long as they don't violate my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then they can go self destruct on their own. Once they cross into my sphere of influence, they better watch their step. I have plenty of legal, physical, and other means to make them have a really bad day. I will make sure I get every penny of 'usury' I have ever paid if they try to force me to pay even more.

[karim0028]

Re: At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.

I myself have begun a practice of "civil disobedience". I refuse to take part in any credit transactions with a bank unless I can either pay for the item 100% in cash or I receive a 0% loan. If a bank wants to argue for the interest, I walk away from the deal because I know it is mathematically impossible to fulfill such a contract.

Eventually, the banks will eat themselves alive from the inside out. As long as they don't violate my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then they can go self destruct on their own. Once they cross into my sphere of influence, they better watch their step. I have plenty of legal, physical, and other means to make them have a really bad day. I will make sure I get every penny of 'usury' I have ever paid if they try to force me to pay even more.

Ricket, please enlighten us on your legal, physical and other means? I wouldn't mind knowing what strategies are available so i can take part as well

[Sharky]

Re: At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.

If a bank wants to argue for the interest, I walk away from the deal because I know it is mathematically impossible to fulfill such a contract.

Please explain why it is mathematically impossible to fulfill such a contract. I have taken out many loans, with interest, and have paid them all back in full, as have many millions of people.

Interest is not evil.

[rogermexico]

Re: At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.

I myself have begun a practice of "civil disobedience". I refuse to take part in any credit transactions with a bank unless I can either pay for the item 100% in cash or I receive a 0% loan. If a bank wants to argue for the interest, I walk away from the deal because I know it is mathematically impossible to fulfill such a contract.

Eventually, the banks will eat themselves alive from the inside out. As long as they don't violate my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then they can go self destruct on their own. Once they cross into my sphere of influence, they better watch their step. I have plenty of legal, physical, and other means to make them have a really bad day. I will make sure I get every penny of 'usury' I have ever paid if they try to force me to pay even more.

Your neighbor borrows your pickup truck to move a sofa. He doesn't own a pickup and usually has no need for one. An ethical and good neighbor will act in hist own self interest (he may want to borrow the truck again) and tops it of with gas and leaves a 12-pack of beer in the cab when he returns it. You are now a "usurer"

You have a surplus of $1000 you have saved over a few years. Your neighbor wants to start a business selling hotdogs but has no cash to pay for the hotdog cart and the bank will not lend to him. You give him your $1000 and he promises to pay it back out of the proceeds (profits) of his new business. He will pay you 7% simple interest, which is 6% more than the bank would pay you for your money as a deposit. Which party is not benefitting from this freely negotiated contract involving "usury"?

The idea that interest, which in a truly free market is simply the market rental rate for money (a commodity used as a medium of exchange and store or value) is somehow evil, is a crackpot idea that belongs in the dustbin with the "labor theory of value" and other marxist fantasies.

Banks are evil because fractional reserve lending is legal fraud, not because they charge interest. The bank calls your demand deposit money even though it is a loan you have made to the bank. Charging interest is perfectly ethical and necessary. If interest rates had been set higher than they were in 2003-2007 by the market (No Federal Reserve) and if there was 100% reserve banking, the economy would not be collapsing as we speak.

[metalman]

Re: At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.

Your neighbor borrows your pickup truck to move a sofa. He doesn't own a pickup and usually has no need for one. An ethical and good neighbor will act in hist own self interest (he may want to borrow the truck again) and tops it of with gas and leaves a 12-pack of beer in the cab when he returns it. You are now a "usurer"

You have a surplus of $1000 you have saved over a few years. Your neighbor wants to start a business selling hotdogs but has no cash to pay for the hotdog cart and the bank will not lend to him. You give him your $1000 and he promises to pay it back out of the proceeds (profits) of his new business. He will pay you 7% simple interest, which is 6% more than the bank would pay you for your money as a deposit. Which party is not benefitting from this freely negotiated contract involving "usury"?

The idea that interest, which in a truly free market is simply the market rental rate for money (a commodity used as a medium of exchange and store or value) is somehow evil, is a crackpot idea that belongs in the dustbin with the "labor theory of value" and other marxist fantasies.

Banks are evil because fractional reserve lending is legal fraud, not because they charge interest. The bank calls your demand deposit money even though it is a loan you have made to the bank. Charging interest is perfectly ethical and necessary. If interest rates had been set higher than they were in 2003-2007 by the market (No Federal Reserve) and if there was 100% reserve banking, the economy would not be collapsing as we speak.

thanks for saying that. this is the kind of common sense thinking that we need more of around here.

[cjppjc]

Re: At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.




Fred: I think my mother would be proud of my restraint. Although I kind of dig the thin one. (I just couldn't help myself):mad:

[Rajiv]

Re: At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.

You may want to read some of Michael Hudson's papers

The Mathematical Economics of Compound Interest - (Part One)
The Mathematical Economics of Compound Interest - (Part Two)
The Early Evolution of Interest-Bearing Debt
Reconstructing the Origins of Interest-Bearing Debt

Also some of Margrit Kennedy's work

Why do we need monetary innovation?
A Changing Money System: The Economy of Ecology
Inflation and Interest-Free Money

[Sapiens]

Re: At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.

Your neighbor borrows your pickup truck to move a sofa. He doesn't own a pickup and usually has no need for one. An ethical and good neighbor will act in hist own self interest (he may want to borrow the truck again) and tops it of with gas and leaves a 12-pack of beer in the cab when he returns it. You are now a "usurer"

Wrong, you would not be a Usurer because the above is not an Usurious contract. There is nothing wrong with receiving compensation for one’s resources when used by someone else.

Now, let us examine how the above would become a Usurious contract:

1. First, you require your neighbor pledge collateral for the use of your truck. It is only prudent, right, who knows, he may have an accident.

2. You require compensation for the use of the truck in beer that only you brew.

3. You require him to pay a 12 pack, when you have only issued a 6 pack into the market.

4. He defaults, when he can only come up with a 6 pack and not a 12 pack.

5. You take him to court and he cannot defend against or articulate an affirmative defense at your allegation that he has failed to pay you the 12 pack of beer.

6. The court finds in your favor and you gain control of his pledged collateral.

You have a surplus of $1000 you have saved over a few years. Your neighbor wants to start a business selling hotdogs but has no cash to pay for the hotdog cart and the bank will not lend to him. You give him your $1000 and he promises to pay it back out of the proceeds (profits) of his new business. He will pay you 7% simple interest, which is 6% more than the bank would pay you for your money as a deposit. Which party is not benefitting from this freely negotiated contract involving "usury"?

In your above example you fail to see how Usury has come into effect by failing to state how the currency or unit of exchange comes into existence. Your practice of Usury would be of a second order. If the emitter of currency would pull out the currency or medium of exchange, the borrower would default out of no fault of his own.

The idea that interest, which in a truly free market is simply the market rental rate for money (a commodity used as a medium of exchange and store or value) is somehow evil, is a crackpot idea that belongs in the dustbin with the "labor theory of value" and other marxist fantasies.

Banks are evil because fractional reserve lending is legal fraud, not because they charge interest. The bank calls your demand deposit money even though it is a loan you have made to the bank. Charging interest is perfectly ethical and necessary. If interest rates had been set higher than they were in 2003-2007 by the market (No Federal Reserve) and if there was 100% reserve banking, the economy would not be collapsing as we speak.

Notice the word evil does not appear in my original post, neither did I said that charging interest is evil. Perhaps a little better comprehension of the subject matter is needed before you label something a crackpot idea.

[Sharky]

Re: At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.

Now, let us examine how the above would become a Usurious contract

Sorry, the analogy is confusing me. Could you translate that into something real-life?

Here's the way it works when you get a loan to buy a car:

1. You sign a contract, agreeing to pledge collateral (a car) and to pay interest on a loan with specific terms.

2. You use the proceeds of the loan to pay the seller of the car.

3. You take possession of the car, but ownership (title) remains with the lender as collateral.

4. You pay back the loan according to the terms in the contract you signed, including both principal and interest.

5. If you fail to pay as agreed, the collateral (the car) will be repossessed.

6. When you finish repaying the loan, title of the car transfers to you.

In simple words, Usury is no more than a "no-win" game for the victim of Usury

I don't understand this either. Why is usury no-win? Why is anyone a "victim"? I have taken out many loans with interest, and paid them all back. Those agreements were win-win for myself and the lenders.

[D-Mack]

Re: At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.

Please explain why it is mathematically impossible to fulfill such a contract. I have taken out many loans, with interest, and have paid them all back in full, as have many millions of people.

Interest is not evil.

MONEY AS DEBT
An instructional video that gets a flunking grade
An analysis by G. Edward Griffin, 2007 June 7

Money As Debt is a well-produced instructional video explaining the inequities in the present world's banking system. In many respects it does an excellent job, but it misses the mark in several important areas. For example, it perpetuates the myth that interest can never be paid back in its entirety because banks do not create enough money to cover the principle plus the interest. I dealt with this myth on page 191 of my book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, as follows:

WHO CREATES THE MONEY TO PAY THE INTEREST?
One of the most perplexing questions associated with this process is "Where does the money come from to pay the interest?" If you borrow $10,000 from a bank at 9%, you owe $10,900. But the bank only manufactures $10,000 for the loan. It would seem, therefore, that there is no way that you - and all others with similar loans - can possibly pay off your indebtedness. The amount of money put into circulation just isn't enough to cover the total debt, including interest. This has led some to the conclusion that it is necessary for you to borrow the $900 for the interest, and that, in turn, leads to still more interest. The assumption is that, the more we borrow, the more we have to borrow, and that debt based on fiat money is a never-ending spiral leading inexorably to more and more debt.

This is a partial truth. It is true that there is not enough money created to include the interest, but it is a fallacy that the only way to pay it back is to borrow still more. The assumption fails to take into account the exchange value of labor. Let us assume that you pay back your $10,000 loan at the rate of approximately $900 per month and that about $80 of that represents interest. You realize you are hard pressed to make your payments so you decide to take on a part-time job. The bank, on the other hand, is now making $80 profit each month on your loan. Since this amount is classified as "interest," it is not extinguished as is the larger portion which is a return of the loan itself. So this remains as spendable money in the account of the bank. The decision then is made to have the bank's floors waxed once a week. You respond to the ad in the paper and are hired at $80 per month to do the job. The result is that you earn the money to pay the interest on your loan, and - this is the point -the money you receive is the same money that you previously had paid. As long as you perform labor for the bank each month, the same dollars go into the bank as interest, then out the revolving door as your wages, and then back into the bank as loan repayment.

It is not necessary that you work directly for the bank. No matter where you earn the money, its origin was a bank, and its ultimate destination is a bank. The loop through which it travels can be large or small, but the fact remains all interest is paid eventually by human effort. And the significance of that fact is even more startling than the assumption that not enough money is created to pay back the interest. It is that the total of this human effort ultimately is for the benefit of those who create fiat money. It is a form of modern serfdom in which the great mass of society works as indentured servants to a ruling class of financial nobility.

It is dissapointing that the producers of this program perpetuated the "no-interest-money" myth but it was even more dissapointing to see them jump on the fiat-money bandwagon as a so-called solution to the banking problem. Yes, they actually propose that the solution to fiat money created out of nothing by the banks is to have fiat money created out of nothing by the government, as though politicians are any more trustworthy than bankers.

One of the primary references cited for this video is another video documentary entitled The Money Masters, written and produced by Bill Still. Still has been a leading advocate of government fiat money, so it is clear where this non-solution came from. If you are interested in my in depth analysis of this concept and of Still's work in particular, see: Meet Bill Still, Fiat-Money Advocate.

http://www.freedom-force.org/freedom...s_debt&refpage

Don't know if it helps

[rogermexico]

Re: At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.

Wrong, you would not be a Usurer because the above is not an Usurious contract. There is nothing wrong with receiving compensation for one’s resources when used by someone else.



Now, let us examine how the above would become a Usurious contract:

1. First, you require your neighbor pledge collateral for the use of your truck. It is only prudent, right, who knows, he may have an accident.

2. You require compensation for the use of the truck in beer that only you brew.

3. You require him to pay a 12 pack, when you have only issued a 6 pack into the market.

4. He defaults, when he can only come up with a 6 pack and not a 12 pack.

5. You take him to court and he cannot defend against or articulate an affirmative defense at your allegation that he has failed to pay you the 12 pack of beer.

6. The court finds in your favor and you gain control of his pledged collateral.




In your above example you fail to see how Usury has come into effect by failing to state how the currency or unit of exchange comes into existence. Your practice of Usury would be of a second order. If the emitter of currency would pull out the currency or medium of exchange, the borrower would default out of no fault of his own.




Notice the word evil does not appear in my original post, neither did I said that charging interest is evil. Perhaps a little better comprehension of the subject matter is needed before you label something a crackpot idea.

Had you paid attention, you might notice I was not responding to your post but to the gentleman who was resisting ever taking a bank loan, etc. Perhaps reading others posts more carefully to see if you have been directly addressed might be a good idea.

As far as my assertion that the idea that all interest is evil is crackpot I stand by it, notwithstanding you concerns about my comprehension. I comprehend the argument in your original post, as in the post I was responding too. These as well as your highly constructed arguments in this post are so constrained and artificial that they are not worth arguing with.


Almost all the objectionable conditions in your counter-example are artifacts of fractional reserve banking, central banking with a banking cartel and state control of the money supply.

I was actually not arguing with whatever your definition of "usury" is, because I don't find it interesting. I was and still am saying that interest per se is not bad (not usury, even), and that banks are evil because of fractional reserve lending.

Maybe you are not using "interest" and "usury" interchangeably, but many including the poster to whom I was responding, do.

[Sapiens]

Re: At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.

Here's the way it works when you get a loan to buy a car:

1. You sign a contract, agreeing to pledge collateral (a car) and to pay interest on a loan with specific terms.

2. You use the proceeds of the loan to pay the seller of the car.

3. You take possession of the car, but ownership (title) remains with the lender as collateral.

4. You pay back the loan according to the terms in the contract you signed, including both principal and interest.

5. If you fail to pay as agreed, the collateral (the car) will be repossessed.

6. When you finish repaying the loan, title of the car transfers to you.

---------------------

I don't understand this either. Why is usury no-win? Why is anyone a "victim"? I have taken out many loans with interest, and paid them all back. Those agreements were win-win for myself and the lenders.

Re your above example, your transaction has taken place inside the whole system, but is not the whole system itself. What you do not see, are those that are forced into bankruptcy because they could not meet their obligations when they were competing against you for those currency units you used to make good on your contract.

About your second point, everyone is a victim because they are paying interest on the use of the currency when they do not even know or agreed to pay such interest on the use of it. Question: Is someone a victim, even when he does not know he is victimized?

[Guest]

Re: At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.

Sapiens, looks like you've climbed into something resembling a rhetorical box here.

[Sapiens]

Re: At the edge of the abyss - When everything is never enough.

These as well as your highly constructed arguments in this post are so constrained and artificial that they are not worth arguing with.

Why the need for analogies and examples, when the system itself is the best example?

Because the ignorant requires an explanation of why the system is flawed since it is not obvious to them. Also, the ignorant, lacking any reference point as to why the system is inimical, we are forced to depict caricatures of the system with examples of commonly known toxic references so the ignorant may comprehend why and how the system is flawed.

Clearly, it is only natural and in their self interest for the apologists and parasites of the system to dismiss such examples as inapplicable, irrelevant, not worth addressing, artificial, etc.