The Political Measuring Stick

[ithink]

With the key being that the money must circulate back from the creator of the debt without interest - i.e. payment for wages in frequency and timing that will satisfy the obligation within the contracted time period.

Money does not circulate in a fiat economy. It is created, and destroyed. Period. (I dare not say "Full Stop" lest I get banned)

[ithink]

Doesn't really matter in the scenario I gave. Let's say the principles was $100,000 and the total interest paid back was $30,000. Under my scenario, because the banker wasn't holding on to the money as it was paid back, and there was no new debt and no new money being introduced into the economy, it was still possible to pay back all the principal and interest... the key there was that the money kept circulating, albeit in a very controlled manner, and wasn't held onto. You could almost say Mr. Smith simply paid off the interest and debt via services rendered to Mr. Banker... yet they still exchanged those pieces of paper, those dollars, back and forth.

With the key being that the money must circulate back from the creator of the debt without interest - i.e. payment for wages in frequency and timing that will satisfy the obligation within the contracted time period.

Yes. and sorry, I didn't mean for my la-la-land scenario to become such a focus of this discussion, a distraction from the truly important issues we face today with such corruption and evil involved in our money system, the tool satan is using effectively to further his plan.

I came across an article by Ezra Taft Benson that addresses some of these economic problems, worth reading: Problems Affecting Our Domestic Tranquillity

In fact, your analogy is not a distraction but has brought the incredible (in French -- incroyable, or unbelievable) situation at hand to the forefront. I would keep it there if I were you, little else matters if this one critical path issue is not resolved -- and fast.

I am currently seeing the same objections raised to the premise that interest based currency systems are terminal as I was when I taught that all money was created out of thin air just 10 short years ago. It was very unknown then, but people are mostly the wiser now and accept that fact readily today. Here we are 10 years later, and the only question is: do we have 10 more years to change peoples minds on this one? I hope so, but I do not think so. Not close. Search your intellect and your feelings and see if you do not feel the same way. Hence my unapologetic approach, but frankly, there are times when the truth needs to be spoken and the speaker need not excuse himself. And since I know none of you personally, rest assured I mean no offense unless the facts I am promulgating you hate, then offended you will be.

From the article you referred Brian, good as it is, there is this impossibility: "We urge our members to stay out of debt...." Unfortunately, in any debt system, there is no way to get out of debt. Everything is by loans, so there we are being asked something that is impossible. Debt is not the enemy. The ability to make a promise and keep it is not the enemy. Compound interest is, because it makes it utterly impossible for us all to make good on our word.

And that Virginia, is the utter hopelessness of our condition.

[Jason]

ithink, I will step in and show an easy example of what Brian is saying.

Smith is lent $100, and will accrue 1% interest each month, and it will accrue the last day of the month. The lender is Mr. Bernanke.

Smith spends the hundred dollars to buy a lawn mower. He mows lawns for $10, or really big lawns for $20. Since we don't want to complicate this economy with all the other people whose lawns Smith could mow (because then we would have to be worried about where their money came from, etc.) We will say that Smith only mows Mr. Bernanke's lawn, and as it is a very large lawn, he gets $20 per mowing, and it needs to be mowed weekly.

At the end of the month after taking care of operating expenses, etc. Smith has $20 that he can pay towards the loan. Which he does leaving a balance of $81. (1 dollar of interest was charged.)

This, continued for 6 months, could pay off the debt. (not to mention that now Smith owns an only slightly used lawn mower.) Smith's labor made it possible to pay the principal AND the interest.

Again, in the real world there are plenty of reasons why it doesn;t work this way - primarily because Mr. Bernanke does not intend it to work this way. He would rather have Smith default on the loan and then he will take the lawn mower and force Smith to mow his lawn (as well as whatever else he needs done!) for the privilege of eating. And I think that was the point that Brian was making - it is not that the math is impossible, it is that the goal of the system's controllers is that the debt not be paid off.

Not true. If you wish this to be a closed system which you appear advocating, then please indicate where Bernanke get's $20 to pay Smith the first time Smith cuts his lawn.

He's got to cut the previous lawnmower owner's lawn first....

[Jason]

With the key being that the money must circulate back from the creator of the debt without interest - i.e. payment for wages in frequency and timing that will satisfy the obligation within the contracted time period.

Money does not circulate in a fiat economy. It is created, and destroyed. Period. (I dare not say "Full Stop" lest I get banned)

I believe I understand the creation part....could you please expound on the destruction part?

[Original_Intent]

ithink, I will step in and show an easy example of what Brian is saying.

Smith is lent $100, and will accrue 1% interest each month, and it will accrue the last day of the month. The lender is Mr. Bernanke.

Smith spends the hundred dollars to buy a lawn mower. He mows lawns for $10, or really big lawns for $20. Since we don't want to complicate this economy with all the other people whose lawns Smith could mow (because then we would have to be worried about where their money came from, etc.) We will say that Smith only mows Mr. Bernanke's lawn, and as it is a very large lawn, he gets $20 per mowing, and it needs to be mowed weekly.

At the end of the month after taking care of operating expenses, etc. Smith has $20 that he can pay towards the loan. Which he does leaving a balance of $81. (1 dollar of interest was charged.)

This, continued for 6 months, could pay off the debt. (not to mention that now Smith owns an only slightly used lawn mower.) Smith's labor made it possible to pay the principal AND the interest.

Again, in the real world there are plenty of reasons why it doesn;t work this way - primarily because Mr. Bernanke does not intend it to work this way. He would rather have Smith default on the loan and then he will take the lawn mower and force Smith to mow his lawn (as well as whatever else he needs done!) for the privilege of eating. And I think that was the point that Brian was making - it is not that the math is impossible, it is that the goal of the system's controllers is that the debt not be paid off.

Not true. If you wish this to be a closed system which you appear advocating, then please indicate where Bernanke get's $20 to pay Smith the first time Smith cuts his lawn.

For the sake of argument, we will assume that Mr. Bernanke will credit Smith's loan balance rather than paying in cash.

Either you are being incredibly obtuse, or you are so focused on winning an argument that you won't open your eyes and read. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'd prefer to keep to the discussion at hand than go all ad hominem on you - but it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone who is clearly dead set against being reasonable. =;

I would also add (after reading your last post) that the idea that you were one of the "select few" to understand that money was created out of thin air ten years ago is a testament to your vanity and is also complete hogwash.

[ithink]

ithink, I will step in and show an easy example of what Brian is saying.

Smith is lent $100, and will accrue 1% interest each month, and it will accrue the last day of the month. The lender is Mr. Bernanke.

Smith spends the hundred dollars to buy a lawn mower. He mows lawns for $10, or really big lawns for $20. Since we don't want to complicate this economy with all the other people whose lawns Smith could mow (because then we would have to be worried about where their money came from, etc.) We will say that Smith only mows Mr. Bernanke's lawn, and as it is a very large lawn, he gets $20 per mowing, and it needs to be mowed weekly.

At the end of the month after taking care of operating expenses, etc. Smith has $20 that he can pay towards the loan. Which he does leaving a balance of $81. (1 dollar of interest was charged.)

This, continued for 6 months, could pay off the debt. (not to mention that now Smith owns an only slightly used lawn mower.) Smith's labor made it possible to pay the principal AND the interest.

Again, in the real world there are plenty of reasons why it doesn;t work this way - primarily because Mr. Bernanke does not intend it to work this way. He would rather have Smith default on the loan and then he will take the lawn mower and force Smith to mow his lawn (as well as whatever else he needs done!) for the privilege of eating. And I think that was the point that Brian was making - it is not that the math is impossible, it is that the goal of the system's controllers is that the debt not be paid off.

Not true. If you wish this to be a closed system which you appear advocating, then please indicate where Bernanke get's $20 to pay Smith the first time Smith cuts his lawn.

He's got to cut the previous lawnmower owner's lawn first....

I thought the lawnmower was new. And besides, isn't this example of a closed system? Not that it matters, but we're discussing Bernanke and Smith to make the point. Everyone reading this should understand that in this system, it doesn't matter if the system is open or closed, the same principles apply.

[ithink]

With the key being that the money must circulate back from the creator of the debt without interest - i.e. payment for wages in frequency and timing that will satisfy the obligation within the contracted time period.

Money does not circulate in a fiat economy. It is created, and destroyed. Period. (I dare not say "Full Stop" lest I get banned)

I believe I understand the creation part....could you please expound on the destruction part?

When you get a loan, the bank takes the promissory note and holds it (usually). Whether they sell it or not is not always clear. At any rate, they have an asset that you created. They put money into the economy because that asset exists. That is called your loan. When your money comes back to pay off the loan, and it is paid in full, they take that promissory note off the books. In effect, it is destroyed. All the money that "circulates" while the loan is yet to be paid is just symbolic of the fact that somewhere a bank holds a promissory note signed by someone else. And, when there is less currency in circulation, it means more people have paid off their loans.

When the system gets near terminal like it is now, the money supply decreases as people desperately and increasingly remove money from "circulation" to meet their obligations. Many panic and work twice as hard to pay off debt so "they're not the last one with the bag". This in turn hurts the economy even more. It's a disaster. God help us.

[ithink]

ithink, I will step in and show an easy example of what Brian is saying.

Smith is lent $100, and will accrue 1% interest each month, and it will accrue the last day of the month. The lender is Mr. Bernanke.

Smith spends the hundred dollars to buy a lawn mower. He mows lawns for $10, or really big lawns for $20. Since we don't want to complicate this economy with all the other people whose lawns Smith could mow (because then we would have to be worried about where their money came from, etc.) We will say that Smith only mows Mr. Bernanke's lawn, and as it is a very large lawn, he gets $20 per mowing, and it needs to be mowed weekly.

At the end of the month after taking care of operating expenses, etc. Smith has $20 that he can pay towards the loan. Which he does leaving a balance of $81. (1 dollar of interest was charged.)

This, continued for 6 months, could pay off the debt. (not to mention that now Smith owns an only slightly used lawn mower.) Smith's labor made it possible to pay the principal AND the interest.

Again, in the real world there are plenty of reasons why it doesn;t work this way - primarily because Mr. Bernanke does not intend it to work this way. He would rather have Smith default on the loan and then he will take the lawn mower and force Smith to mow his lawn (as well as whatever else he needs done!) for the privilege of eating. And I think that was the point that Brian was making - it is not that the math is impossible, it is that the goal of the system's controllers is that the debt not be paid off.

Not true. If you wish this to be a closed system which you appear advocating, then please indicate where Bernanke get's $20 to pay Smith the first time Smith cuts his lawn.

For the sake of argument, we will assume that Mr. Bernanke will credit Smith's loan balance rather than paying in cash.

Either you are being incredibly obtuse, or you are so focused on winning an argument that you won't open your eyes and read. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'd prefer to keep to the discussion at hand than go all ad hominem on you - but it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone who is clearly dead set against being reasonable. =;

I would also add (after reading your last post) that the idea that you were one of the "select few" to understand that money was created out of thin air ten years ago is a testament to your vanity and is also complete hogwash.

I'll have it any way. But I'm willing to stick around until you eat your words. Brian already told us that the bank only loaned out $100K of the $130K Smith had to pay back. Now sir, demonstrate that you are not pontificating as you accuse me so of, and please tell us all where that extra $30K will come from.

I really don't care about this whole discussion, except that it is absolutely critical that as many people as possible understand what is wrong and what to do RIGHT NOW. The time for messing around is over, we need to be ready to know what to do ASAP.

[Original_Intent]

OK I'll make it easy for you.

Smith repays $30,000. so at this point Smith has $70,000, and his lender has $30,000, and Smith owes $100,000. <----tell me if you have lost me here or are you with me?
Then Smith is out walking one day and finds a shiny stone on the ground. He shows it to his lender who absolutley must have it! He offers to pay Smith $30,000 for the pretty rock, and Smith agrees. Smith now has $100,000 and owes $100,000. <--- tell me if you are still with me or if I have committed some grave logical fallacy!!!!
Smith pays back the $100,000 . The lender has been repaid all $130,000 with only $100,000 in the closed economy!!! <---Did I lose you on that? Are you with us?

[Jason]

I believe I understand the creation part....could you please expound on the destruction part?

When you get a loan, the bank takes the promissory note and holds it (usually). Whether they sell it or not is not always clear. At any rate, they have an asset that you created. They put money into the economy because that asset exists. That is called your loan. When your money comes back to pay off the loan, and it is paid in full, they take that promissory note off the books. In effect, it is destroyed. All the money that "circulates" while the loan is yet to be paid is just symbolic of the fact that somewhere a bank holds a promissory note signed by someone else. And, when there is less currency in circulation, it means more people have paid off their loans.

When the system gets near terminal like it is now, the money supply decreases as people desperately and increasingly remove money from "circulation" to meet their obligations. Many panic and work twice as hard to pay off debt so "they're not the last one with the bag". This in turn hurts the economy even more. It's a disaster. God help us.

Thank you for the refresher!!!

[Jason]

OK I'll make it easy for you.

Smith repays $30,000. so at this point Smith has $70,000, and his lender has $30,000, and Smith owes $100,000. <----tell me if you have lost me here or are you with me?
Then Smith is out walking one day and finds a shiny stone on the ground. He shows it to his lender who absolutley must have it! He offers to pay Smith $30,000 for the pretty rock, and Smith agrees. Smith now has $100,000 and owes $100,000. <--- tell me if you are still with me or if I have committed some grave logical fallacy!!!!
Smith pays back the $100,000 . The lender has been repaid all $130,000 with only $100,000 in the closed economy!!! <---Did I lose you on that? Are you with us?

Unless of course the money is destroyed upon repayment of the loan......then its mathematically impossible!

[ithink]

OK I'll make it easy for you.

Smith repays $30,000. so at this point Smith has $70,000, and his lender has $30,000, and Smith owes $100,000. <----tell me if you have lost me here or are you with me?
Then Smith is out walking one day and finds a shiny stone on the ground. He shows it to his lender who absolutley must have it! He offers to pay Smith $30,000 for the pretty rock, and Smith agrees. Smith now has $100,000 and owes $100,000. <--- tell me if you are still with me or if I have committed some grave logical fallacy!!!!
Smith pays back the $100,000 . The lender has been repaid all $130,000 with only $100,000 in the closed economy!!! <---Did I lose you on that? Are you with us?

Nice try, but you fail grade 5 math.

The banker lends Smith $100K in this closed economy. Smith pays $30K back to the banker. How he does that I'll never know because I thought he used it to build a slide. No matter, because we can do this 40 ways if you wish, because compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe, and will smash everything in it's way.

As I was saying, Smith now has $70K, and the banker appears to have $30K. The total appears to still be $100K available to spend between them, but in reality it is only $70K, and here lies your error. How? Simple. The $30K Smith pays the banker goes against the loan at the bank. This is where most people screw up because they have been trained to think that money circulates, which it absolutely does not. Money is created and destroyed. So in fact, all the currency available for commerce is now down to $70K. But you say the Banker buys a stone from Smith. I say: how? The $30K Smith paid paid off part of the loan at the bank. The banker still has no money. Suppose Smith pays the banker the entire $100K and takes him a rock worth $30K. If so, the banker must first borrow $30K from his own bank to buy the rock! Aha, so another loan is needed to be born to pay off the last one.

Sir, you could have made it easier on us by saying simple Smith borrows $100K from Banker, pays Banker $100K back and offers a stone for sale for $30K. The immediate question then is where does Banker get the $30K from to buy the stone? Answer: the Banker loans himself the $30K + interest to buy the stone. Smith then pays Banker the $30K, and banker retires his loan. Or does he? Because you see, bankers always loan money at interest, so Banker now owes his own bank the interest charges for this $30K loan, which I say are $5K. So Banker now needs $5K to pay off his debt. Where does he get the money from to pay it off? Easy! Buck up Mr. Banker because look who just walked in: none other than Mr. Smith.......

My only question now is this: are you ready to quit yet? Who is next? Batter up!

[ithink]

OK I'll make it easy for you.

Smith repays $30,000. so at this point Smith has $70,000, and his lender has $30,000, and Smith owes $100,000. <----tell me if you have lost me here or are you with me?
Then Smith is out walking one day and finds a shiny stone on the ground. He shows it to his lender who absolutley must have it! He offers to pay Smith $30,000 for the pretty rock, and Smith agrees. Smith now has $100,000 and owes $100,000. <--- tell me if you are still with me or if I have committed some grave logical fallacy!!!!
Smith pays back the $100,000 . The lender has been repaid all $130,000 with only $100,000 in the closed economy!!! <---Did I lose you on that? Are you with us?

Unless of course the money is destroyed upon repayment of the loan......then its mathematically impossible!

Bingo! We have a winner!

[Original_Intent]

So it sounds like you have identified the problem as the destruction of "money" at the point of loan repayment, rather than the compound interest bogey man you have been proposing.

Which if money was something of intrinsic value (i.e. commodity backed) said destruction would not happen. It is destroyed on repayment in our current system only because it returns to the nothing from which it was created.

Interest is only the villain because you are determined to make it so regardless of where the facts lead you.

[Teancum-Old]

Your economy is tanking and the collective fallout is going to be total disaster. If you want answers, have a hard look at what I have offered, regardless of how it was offered. Go read the letters between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Frankly, what I have written doesn't even begin to approach what was exchanged between those two men -- real men. If you and your feelings and your opinions are made of glass, that is your problem -- not mine. The fact is because of the collective attitude not unlike yours, we are not ready to stand up and meet the challenge that is before us head on. In my opinion, we stand ready to get run over Book of Mormon style.

Now what was this thread about?

Jumping to conclusions, huh ithink?? When did I ever say this was MY ECONOMY, as if I endorse all the corruption, bailouts, and all that comes with it?? All I have been saying is that your conclusion that interest is evil is completely wrong. Never have I expressed a shred of support for the current economic system.

ithink, I am not sobbing here waiting for an apology from you (as you believe my "feelings and... opinions are made of glass"). Based on the appearance, it seems that you may actually be TRYING to have a real discussion now (you know a civil, "frank (albeit painful) and honest" discussion). This would be great! But if you keep coming out puffed in pride (elitish), then it will be impossible to take you seriously. )

So it sounds like you have identified the problem as the destruction of "money" at the point of loan repayment, rather than the compound interest bogey man you have been proposing.

Original_Intent is right on with this one! Destruction of fiat "money" at the point of loan repayment is the problem not the interest. As I have mentioned before, if interest is SO EVIL, as you would have us all believe, how could the Savior use it POSITIVELY in some of His parables??
For example:

A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
[13] And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
[14] But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
[15] And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
[16] Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
[17] And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
[18] And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
[19] And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
[20] And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
[21] For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
[22] And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
[23] Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
[24] And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
[25] (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
[26] For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
Luke 19:12-26

To make his point, Jesus told the last servant that he should have put his money into the bank in order to see the return of principal ("mine own") plus interest ("usury"). As such, how can interest be evil?? Additionally, are you implying that the failed Bank of Kirtland did not employ interest in any of its practices?? Or that it did employ interest but without Joseph's approval?

Yes, interest can be abused by wicked people (as has been done through history and is being done today--apparently leading to our downfall, as you have stated). But still, INTEREST, IN AND OF ITSELF, IS NOT EVIL; yet it is used for evil purposes when the wicked are in control.

[ithink]

So it sounds like you have identified the problem as the destruction of "money" at the point of loan repayment, rather than the compound interest bogey man you have been proposing.

Which if money was something of intrinsic value (i.e. commodity backed) said destruction would not happen. It is destroyed on repayment in our current system only because it returns to the nothing from which it was created.

Interest is only the villain because you are determined to make it so regardless of where the facts lead you.

Switch the topic if you wish, but no matter, I can hit with both hands, and of course the truth is a double edged s-word. And I'd love to just end this and agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong, and that just isn't how I fly, so here we go.


Compound interest is the god of Abraham's idolatrous father -- the same god you are now defending. It's worse than the love of money: it's the love of unearned money.

Any exponential system must fail or consume everything. Bacteria start to grow exponentially at first, but are slowed after the immediate resources are consumed and stable growth occurs. Bacteria are a good example for this discussion, because while bacteria know when to quit, it seems the bankers do not. That in my mind puts them one under those tiny organisms, along with those who continue to prop them up because if you are not a part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

At the latter stages of the exponential curve, at about 3/4 of the way to it's destruction, the amount of currency in circulation, that is to say the money available to spend, is eclipsed by the periodic cost of servicing debt. You probably don't have a clue what I just said, but there it is. Anyway, at that point, the system starts to fail for the people. ie. it starts to not work as more and more money is dragged faster and faster out of the economy to service the debt, until nearly everything is consumed by this compound interest. This point for you was back in 2008. We are now in 2011. The end is near, and you are rapidly approaching terminal deflation.

I consider those who promulgate this system worthy of trial and punishment for crimes against humanity, preferably capital. It is the destruction of the government that caused Christ to treat the great city of Jacobugath to be burned with fire. And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them. There you have it: these men and those who sustain them (ie. the people in the city), leave the hookers and the thieves and the liars in the dust. Nobody can hold a candle to that level of wickedness. Especially among those who ought to know better. It is enough to cause the devil himself to tremble and palsy in shock and practical disbelief.

And as for your utterly ridiculous "Which if money was something of intrinsic value (i.e. commodity backed) said destruction would not happen. It is destroyed on repayment in our current system only because it returns to the nothing from which it was created." You must be kidding. You have some seriously muddled thinking going on there. I don't care if you have $500 billion in gold in the bank to back your money, and the reason I don't care is because the math screams out that if you need to sign up to pay compound interest to get the money out, no matter what backs it, you will still fall behind and the system will still fail. A compound interest system is still compound interest whether you back the paper with gold, nothing, lego, or rat's droppings. It will all be destroyed in the end. Unless we stop it now, but unfortunately time is running out very fast, and I fear Benson's words will ring truer than when he spoke them as the blood flows in the streets.

And you two sirs, are wasting time and delaying, and as Nibley says, if undue haste is not acceptable, then delay is inexcusable.

[ithink]

To make his point, Jesus told the last servant that he should have put his money into the bank in order to see the return of principal ("mine own") plus interest ("usury"). As such, how can interest be evil?? Additionally, are you implying that the failed Bank of Kirtland did not employ interest in any of its practices?? Or that it did employ interest but without Joseph's approval?

Yes, interest can be abused by wicked people (as has been done through history and is being done today--apparently leading to our downfall, as you have stated). But still, INTEREST, IN AND OF ITSELF, IS NOT EVIL; yet it is used for evil purposes when the wicked are in control.

What a wild and twisted and perverted reading of the scriptures. To say that Christ is a userer is in my mind blasphemy. Christ used the analogy because everyone knew that the Roman empire would routinely appoint notable Romans to rule certain countries. The would be given about 3 months wages and were expected to start ruling and trading and do something with what they had been given. Upon checkup, they were expected to produce and if they had not, they were punished. Christ used this Roman practice to illustrate his point, but the parable has absolutely nothing to do with making money for nothing and everything to do with character building. The underlying point is that these idiots spend their whole lives making money without barely a thought of their deposits and investments for the next life.

It's another double edged lesson from the Master, and a scathing rebuke against a system that claims to render unto Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is God's, but ends up rendering everything to Caesar. Interestingly, I worship Christ who has expiated for me -- a debt I cannot pay. The devil provides his Saviour as well, and it's debts cannot be paid either. The whole thing is nothing more than a pile of stinking, rotten, filty, decomposed, bad-smelling, corroded, feculent heap of infected, loathsome, moldy, overripe, purulent, pustular, putrescent, putrid, rotting, stinking, unsound system that it is.

As for Kirtland, Joseph was prepared to institute a system similar to what I am promoting but never could fully before it was crushed by it's enemies internally and externally, and no, it did not include compound interest. Ponder on the fact that when destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money.

[ithink]

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

The mighty men of Babylon have forborn to fight, they have remained in their holds: their might hath failed; they became as women: they have burned her dwellingplaces; her bars are broken.

[Original_Intent]

If I own a ship. and someone wants to use it, do I have a right to charge him for the use of my ship even though I have not done any "work" to earn the money.

Yes the ship is what I have decided to use to store my wealth, which is nothing more than accumulated work that is stored in a thing of value. Yet you say this would be immoral.

There is absolutely no difference with money or anything else. In my example, the fact that I lent my ship is my "interest" in the venture of delivering goods to another market. Maybe the person who wants to deliver the goods also does not have the money to buy the goods. If someone lends him the money to buy the goods, he has also vested an interest in the endeavor, event hough he to may not do any work directly in the process.

So we have three people contributing to the venture - the boat owner, the person who lent the money to purchase the goods to be shipped, and the man who will steer the ship and sell the goods. The only person that did actual work is the third man, and according to you only the third man has any right to see any profit from the venture.

That's all it boils down to. Yes our current system is amazingly corrupt, it is because in my example, it would be as if the guy who lent the money was able to print it at will - THAT would be completely immoral as he would not be lending stored wealth (work) but would essentially be a counterfeiter, a thief.

I am afraid you are too set in your ways to even consider this with an open mind, your end goal is to win the argument, not seek truth. You have had it explained in multiple ways. I'm done with this conversation.

[Jason]

If I own a ship. and someone wants to use it, do I have a right to charge him for the use of my ship even though I have not done any "work" to earn the money.

Yes the ship is what I have decided to use to store my wealth, which is nothing more than accumulated work that is stored in a thing of value. Yet you say this would be immoral.

There is absolutely no difference with money or anything else. In my example, the fact that I lent my ship is my "interest" in the venture of delivering goods to another market. Maybe the person who wants to deliver the goods also does not have the money to buy the goods. If someone lends him the money to buy the goods, he has also vested an interest in the endeavor, event hough he to may not do any work directly in the process.

So we have three people contributing to the venture - the boat owner, the person who lent the money to purchase the goods to be shipped, and the man who will steer the ship and sell the goods. The only person that did actual work is the third man, and according to you only the third man has any right to see any profit from the venture.

That's all it boils down to. Yes our current system is amazingly corrupt, it is because in my example, it would be as if the guy who lent the money was able to print it at will - THAT would be completely immoral as he would not be lending stored wealth (work) but would essentially be a counterfeiter, a thief.

I am afraid you are too set in your ways to even consider this with an open mind, your end goal is to win the argument, not seek truth. You have had it explained in multiple ways. I'm done with this conversation.

I think there is a very good reason for the Lord establishing a debt reset every 7th year.....

[Original_Intent]

Agreed!

I'm 47 and am also due a Grand Jubilee year I think!

[ithink]

see below

[ithink]

If I own a ship. and someone wants to use it, do I have a right to charge him for the use of my ship even though I have not done any "work" to earn the money.

Yes the ship is what I have decided to use to store my wealth, which is nothing more than accumulated work that is stored in a thing of value. Yet you say this would be immoral.

There is absolutely no difference with money or anything else. In my example, the fact that I lent my ship is my "interest" in the venture of delivering goods to another market. Maybe the person who wants to deliver the goods also does not have the money to buy the goods. If someone lends him the money to buy the goods, he has also vested an interest in the endeavor, event hough he to may not do any work directly in the process.

So we have three people contributing to the venture - the boat owner, the person who lent the money to purchase the goods to be shipped, and the man who will steer the ship and sell the goods. The only person that did actual work is the third man, and according to you only the third man has any right to see any profit from the venture.

That's all it boils down to. Yes our current system is amazingly corrupt, it is because in my example, it would be as if the guy who lent the money was able to print it at will - THAT would be completely immoral as he would not be lending stored wealth (work) but would essentially be a counterfeiter, a thief.

I am afraid you are too set in your ways to even consider this with an open mind, your end goal is to win the argument, not seek truth. You have had it explained in multiple ways. I'm done with this conversation.

You say you have a ship. I say you have a nice imaginary ship. You analogy is comparing the tangible world thing to the intangible. A promise to pay is intangible, but is very real. Nothing is wrong with that, and nobody can take away your ability to promise and enter into any contract. Not morally anyway.

You go to the bank. Where is the ship? It's in your pen. You create the ship with your pen. The bank then commodifies it for a fee that compounds on itself. So not only do they steal your promise to pay, er, your ship, they charge you for it, and create a bunch of other ships that neither you nor they created, but which they claim as theirs.

If you really do own a ship, I sustain your claim you can rent it out. But how many customers would you get if you charged a compounding rent?

Set in my ways I am. I demand the truth. I've turned your arguments aside at every turn. And on my side I have literature from minds better than yours and mine, books you have never heard of let alone read. I have mathematics on my side, and history, and God's word. You have nothing. Come out of Babylon and be not a partaker of her sins. Despise her, and fight against her instead of defending her and building her up.

[ithink]

I think there is a very good reason for the Lord establishing a debt reset every 7th year.....

Sure, but there was a whole lot more to it than that. We'd have to ask Darren for more information on that. The Jubilee was also a celebration, a way to allow the poor to keep up, to allow the downtrodden to pick himself up, and to humble the rich. None of this happens today. God must be very angry.

[Teancum-Old]

You say you have a ship. I say you have a nice imaginary ship. You analogy is comparing the tangible world thing to the intangible. A promise to pay is intangible, but is very real. Nothing is wrong with that, and nobody can take away your ability to promise and enter into any contract. Not morally anyway.

You go to the bank. Where is the ship? It's in your pen. You create the ship with your pen. The bank then commodifies it for a fee that compounds on itself. So not only do they steal your promise to pay, er, your ship, they charge you for it, and create a bunch of other ships that neither you nor they created, but which they claim as theirs.

If you really do own a ship, I sustain your claim you can rent it out. But how many customers would you get if you charged a compounding rent?

Set in my ways I am. I demand the truth. I've turned your arguments aside at every turn. And on my side I have literature from minds better than yours and mine, books you have never heard of let alone read. I have mathematics on my side, and history, and God's word. You have nothing. Come out of Babylon and be not a partaker of her sins. Despise her, and fight against her instead of defending her and building her up.

I get it... I think that ithink has the puffed in pride (PIP) syndrome. :ymsmug: We must forgive him and help him see that this syndrome is curable and should be taken seriously as the BOM suggests.

Ithink, since you are so smart and so far beyond everyone else's intellect on this forum, why don't you prove it? All I see is a circular argument on your part such as

Where is the ship? It's in your pen. You create the ship with your pen.

Let's break OI's example down to a simple raft. Now I can build a raft from wood that I've chopped and gathered. I can use that raft to take my furs to a nearby town, down the local river, to trade. If I want to rent out my raft to someone who believes they can profit using it, so be it. I build another for my own use. I rent it out the first and make money from my investment. Of course, these earnings were not from sweat directly from my brow. Never had to go to a bank to borrow money on interest for this. Labor has value. My labor building the raft reaped me profits later on. Not everything has to start with a loan.

You have been given concrete examples of how interest is clearly not the evil culprit you would have us all believe. An example was given on how circulation of money can payoff interest as long as the banker puts his earnings (from the loan repayments; not new currency from another loan) back into the same economy. Then you bring up money destruction (fine, this is accepted--for fiat). Then a response was given about backing the money with a commodity which cannot be destroyed. You returned right back with your circular logic stating:

I don't care if you have $500 billion in gold in the bank to back your money, and the reason I don't care is because the math screams out that if you need to sign up to pay compound interest to get the money out, no matter what backs it, you will still fall behind and the system will still fail. A compound interest system is still compound interest whether you back the paper with gold, nothing, lego, or rat's droppings. It will all be destroyed in the end.

We are quickly back to the beginning again. You brought us back full circle without any proof of how commodity money can be destroyed.

Now if you would have us believe anything you say, ithink, I require proof. Such a dramatic change in thinking so as to believe that interest is evil, requires proof. You have offered non thus far.

You say "Compound interest is the god of Abraham's idolatrous father," I say prove it.
You say even commodity-backed currency "will all be destroyed in the end," I say prove it.
You say "the math screams out that... the system [that employs interest] will still fail." I say prove it. (I think I can handle the math )
You say the Kirtland Bank "did not include compound interest," I say prove it.
You say that Christ's use of usury (or interest) in His parables have "absolutely nothing to do with making money for nothing and everything to do with character building," then I say why would He have used such an evil concept in order to teach us a principle of the Gospel? Whether this had anything to do with the Romans, matters not. Additionally, who is defending the right to make money for nothing? Labor is essential (see raft example above).
You say "you two sirs, are wasting time and delaying," I say we are either proving you wrong or helping you build a better case for your thesis. Either way, continuing this discussion will benefit all of us (assuming we can avoid the circular arguments) by getting us closer to the truth, regardless of who is right.

Try me ithink. I understand you are the greatest thing in the world and that we should kiss the ground that you walk on, but I think I am up to reading references that you believe prove your point. Don't let you PIP attitude get in the way of sharing your sources. But be specific. You need to entice me. So far, you've offered nothing but circularity. With that approach, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously??