The Political Measuring Stick

[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??

[Original_Intent]

The only economics that requires complex math is bogus economics that use the complexity to hide the dishonesty.

Compund interest is what? 4th or 5th grade math? I'm not too shabby at math, or logic (state debate team back in the day, 10+years of computer programming as my primary career (almost all for the banking industry btw.) and I have a couple of the best (high school) mathematicians in the state at my beck and call to check anything that gets too complicated for me. But I say again, even implying that some kind of math genius is required to understand interest? Please.

[Jason]

....forget the egos.....what's the truth? and how does it impact our lives?

[ChemtrailWatcher]

All this economics talk goes completely over my head, so please forgive me for not really understanding what the heck you're all talking about here, but I just wanted to pitch in that my impression has always been that usury was a condemned practise (at least in the past). Again, I can't argue it because I don't understand the whole concept (even though I did pass grade 5 math) , but I thought I'd post an article regarding the history of usury (according to a group who are obviously against it) from a website I found:

From http://stopusuryinamerica.com/whatisusury.html

History of Usury in the World and America.

Usury Through the Ages

Usury has been acknowledged as morally wrong activity for thousands of years. The oldest known references to usury are found in the Indian Vedic text from 2,000- 1,400 BC. Kusidin, the “userer,” is mentioned several times. “More frequent and detailed references to interest payment are to be found in the later Sutra texts (700-100 BC), as well as the Buddhist Jatakas (600-400 BC). It is during this latter period that the first sentiments of contempt for usury are expressed. For example, Vasishtha, a well known Hindu lawmaker of that time, made a special law which forbade the higher castes of Brahmanas (priests) and Kshatriyas (warriors) from being usurers or lenders at interest. Also, in the Jatakas, usury is referred to in a demeaning manner: ‘hypocritical ascetics are accused of practising it’” (Visser, A Short Review of the Historical Critique of Usury)

In the Old Testament, usury is considered an “abominable thing,” listed next to rape, murder, robbery and adultery. (Ezekiel 18:19-13). "Take not usury nor more than thou gavest. Fear thy God, that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury nor exact of him any increase of fruits." (Leviticus)

The Ancient Greeks regulated interest, and then deregulated it. Upon deregulation, there was a catastrophic amount of unregulated debt which lead to the selling of Athenians into slavery. Plato (Laws, v. 742) and Aristotle (Politics, I, x, xi) both agreed that usury was an immoral and unnatural. “Aristotle defined money as a good that was consumed by use. Unlike houses and fields, which are not destroyed by use, money must be spent to be used. Therefore, as we cannot rnt food, so we cannot rent money. Moreover, money does not reproduce. A house or a flock can produce new value by use, so it is not unreasonable to ask for a return on their use. Money, being barren, should not, therefore, be expected to produce excess value. Thus, interest is unnatural.” (Jones, Norman)

In 443 B.C., the Romans capped interest at 8 1/3%. 400 years later the Roman usury rate increased to 12 %. In 533 AD, the “Code of Justinian” set a graduated maximum interest rate that did not exceed 8 1/3% for loans to citizens. This law was in place for a thousands years.

The Muslim religion has very strong laws against usury. The Quran states that “Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that usury is the same as commerce. However, God permits commerce, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with God. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever” (Al-Baqarah 2:275)

In 800 AD, Charlemagne outlawed the charging of interest throughout his empire. Medieval Roman law fined usurer's 4x the amount that was taken, where robbery fines were only 2x the amount taken.

Dante placed usurers lower in his circles of hell than murderers in Dante’s Inferno. Dante questions why “usury offends the divine Goodness” (96-97). Virgil responds that “if you remember Genesis at the beginning, it behooves man to gain his bread and to prosper. But because the usurer takes another way, he contemns Nature in herself and in her follower, for he puts his hope elsewhere.” (106-111)

From 1570 to 1854, interest rates in England are capped at 10%.
Though Adam Smith was a strong advocate of laissez-fair economics, he was also a supporter of controlling usury. He believed that charging interest should be legal, however that there should be an interest rate ceiling to regulate it.
In 1891, Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum reflected on “voracious usury ... an evil condemned frequently by the Church but nevertheless still practised in deceptive ways by avaricious men.”

Usury in the United States

American colonies adopted usury laws that capped interest rates at 8%. After independence in 1776, every state in the Union adopted some form of usury law. Most states had interest limits as low as 6%.

In the early 1900’s, the move toward deregulation began. Nine states raised their usury caps slightly to 10% or 12% and eleven states eliminated their usury laws entirely. In 1916, a Uniform Small Loan Law allowed certain licensed lenders to charge high interest rates in exchange for complying with strict lending criterion. These interest rates could go up to 36%. By 1945, all states adopted similar special loan laws that capped interest rates at 36%, much higher than the general usury rates of 10% and 12%.

John Maynard Keynes believed that usury should be controlled and limited. He thought that “the disquisitions of the schoolmen [on usury] were directed towards elucidation of a formula which should allow the schedule of the marginal efficiency to be high, whilst using rule and custom and the moral law to keep down the rate of interest, so that a wise Government is concerned to curb it by statute and custom and even by invoking the sanctions of the Moral Law” (1936: 351-3).

In 1978, the US Supreme court made a drastic decision regarding usury laws. The Case Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First Omaha Service Corp. lead to the decision that national banks had the power to use the interest rate of their home state in any other state that they did business. “the effect of this was the the big national banks were not subject to any state usury law because the banking act of 1864 had no interest rate cap on it... In effect this sealed what had been a trend throughout the country which was lifting these interest rate caps for banks and giving consumers easy credit on the premise that they would just pay tons and tons of interest so the banks were protected if the loan weren’t repaid.” (Geoghegan) Many credit card companies moved to states like South Dakota, which had no interest rate cap. They were then able to use South Dakota’s interest rate limit (or lack there-of) in ANY state, whether or not the other states had caps of 8% or 12%. Then, in 1980, as a result of deflation congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act which exempt federally chartered savings banks from state usury limits and allowed these banks and credit card companies to charge exorbitant interest rates anywhere- whether the state usury limit was 10% or nonexistent.

[ChemtrailWatcher]

Here's another article I found (This is only Part 1 of a series of articles on this person's website):

From http://usuryfree.blogspot.com/2010/02/u ... earth.html:

Sunday, February 07, 2010
Usury is the Greatest Crime on Earth---Leading to Most Others

PART I

Mankind's battle against enslavement by the Satanic money changers:

“Usury, the most intractable form of slavery.”

The money lenders create “money” out of thin air and then loan it to us as a debt bearing interest. This Satanic mechanism is the enslaver of nations and the destroyer of peoples. Divine law assesses the death penalty against anyone charging interest and forbids us as individuals to submit to debt. *

The following passages (Parts I through V) are excerpted from* *THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF MONEY & NEW WORLD ORDER USURY SECRETS*

http://www.lulu.com/browse/book_view.ph ... fBuyItem=5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Horace Greely 1811-1872: "While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to control the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system, we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery."

The Biggest Problem on Earth is Usury as explained in Assorted Scriptures:

As Napoleon pointed out: “Terrorism, War & Bankruptcy are caused by the privatization of money, issued as a debt and compounded by interest - he cancelled debt and interest in France - hence the titanic struggle waged against him by the international banking houses (id est, the Rothschild syndicate) who controlled (and still do) England and all the rest of the nations of Europe. In that sense, once could point to Napoleon as a historical predecessor to Adolph Hitler.

The word Usury in Hebrew is "nesek" and it means “BITING” as from a serpent. It is characterized as “devouring” in the Quran!

THE BIBLE:

"The love of money is the root of all evil": (1 Timothy 6:10);

"If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him a usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury." Exodus 22:25;

"Take no usury of him, or increase ... thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury." Leviticus 25:36-37;

"Unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: That the Lord they God bless thee." Deuteronomy 23:20;

"The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender." Proverbs 22.7;

"The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high, and thou shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him; he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail." Deut. 28:44-45;

"The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender." Prophet Solomon’s words in Proverbs 22:7;

“The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shall come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and thou shall be the tail.” Deut. 28:44-45;

“It's the same fatal bite of that old Serpent the Devil and Satan which deceiveth the whole World.” (Rev. 12:9);

"The rich [usurers] rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender." Proverbs 22.7;

(For a Bible example of cancellation of debts to money lenders and restoration of property and money to the people, read Nehemiah 5:1-13. For a Quranic example, read the history of what happened when verses related to forbidding usury were revealed)

Yeshua-Joshua-Yeshua-Isa had scathing remarks for the Pharisees (the priest-bankers-usurers who worked from the Temple in Jerusalem) who mislead and prey upon ordinary people in Matthew 23. He exposed them for the sort of people they were: "Hypocrites," "sons of hell," "blind guides," "fools," "full of robbery and self-indulgence," "whitewashed tombs...full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness," "full of hypocrisy and lawlessness," "partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets", "serpents and brood of vipers", “den of thieves”, “Synagogue of Satan”, Rev. 2:9 "I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan", "Ye are of your father, the devil ... He was a murderer from the beginning ... he is a liar and the father of it."

Pharisees: At the ancient temple in Jerusalem during Yeshua-Joshua-Yeshua’s time two thousand years ago, the Pharisees money-changers used the Jewish and Sun-god temples to collect interest. Yeshua-Joshua was so upset by the sight of the money changers in the temple (the priest-bankers-usurers who worked from the Temple in Jerusalem) who mislead ordinary Jews, he waded in and started to tip over the tables and drive them out with a whip, this being he one and only time we ever hear of him using force during his entire ministry. o what caused the ultimate pacifist to become so aggressive? For a long time he Jews had been called upon to pay their temple tax with a special coin called the half shekle. It was a measured half ounce of pure silver with no mage of a pagan emperor on it. It was to them the only coin acceptable to God (actually to the Pharisees). But because there was only a limited number of these coins in circulation, the money changers were in a buyer’s market and like with anything else in short supply, they were able to raise the price to what the market would bear. They made huge profits with their monopoly on these coins and turned this time of devotion into a mockery for profit. Yeshua-Joshua saw this as stealing from the people and proclaimed the whole setup to be "A den of thieves". Yeshua-Joshua exposing of the money hangers made him a target for them and their leader Caiaphas.

THE QURAN (THE READ):

Surah/Chapter 4, ayah/verses 153-161: “That they took usury though they were forbidden it, and through it devoured men’s substance wrongfully.” “You who believe, devour of usury, doubled and multiplied; but fear God that you may prosper.” 3-V130.

Chapter II verse 275: “Those who devour usury will not stand except as stands one whom the evil one by his touch has driven to madness. That is because they say Trade is like usury, but GOD has permitted trade and forbidden usury. Those who after receiving direction from their LORD desist shall be pardoned. For the past, their case is with GOD. But those who repeat the offence are companions of the fire (misery), hey will abide therein forever.

Chapter II verse 278: “O you who believe! hear GOD and give up what remains of your demand for usury if you're indeed believers.” “If the debtor is in a difficulty, grant him time ill it is easy for him to repay. But if you remit it by way of charity, that is best for you if you only realized it.” C2-V280;

The Prophet Mohammad said around the beginning of the 7th century:

“A time will come upon people when almost everyone will eat from usury, to the extent that those who refrain from it will be exposed to its dust. I. Maja, Tijara, 58; I. Hanbal, 2.494; Nasai, Buyu, 2).

The Prophet Mohammed's last sermon: "Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that ou will indeed meet your LORD, and that HE will indeed reckon your deeds. GOD has forbidden you to take usury; therefore all interest obligations shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will either inflict nor suffer any inequity.”

Sir Josiah Stamp, former President, Bank of England:

"Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create oney and control credit, and with a flick of a pen they will create enough to buy it back."

Article I, Section 10, United States? Constitution:

“No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

Article I, Section 8, United States? Constitution:

“The Congress shall have power...to coin money (and) regulate the value thereof.”

Representative Wright Patman, former Chairman of a house Banking Committee
said:

"The Federal Reserve Banks create money out of thin air to buy Government bonds... The Federal Reserve Bank is a total money making machine.*" [they have the monopoly on counterfeiting money]

In 1913, before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, Mr. Alexander stated:

"But the whole scheme of a Federal Reserve Bank with its commercial-paper basis is an impractical, cumbersome machinery; is simply a cover, to find a way to secure the privilege of issuing money and to evade payment of as much tax upon circulation as possible, and then control the issue and maintain, instead of reduce, interest rates. It is a system that, if inaugurated, will prove to the advantage of the few and the detriment of the people of the United States. It will mean continued shortage of actual money and further extension of credits; for when there is a lack of real money people have to borrow credit to their cost"

Sentaor Nelson Aldrich (one of the co-conspirators of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act):

“Before passage of this Act, the New York Bankers could only dominate the reserves of New York. Now, we are able to dominate the bank reserves of the entire country.”

Former Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Eccles was asked by Patman:

"Mr. Eccles, how did you get the money to buy these two billion dollars of government bonds."

Mr. Eccles replied, "We create it."

"Out of what?" Patman asked.

"Out of the right to issue credit money, i.e. out of nothing.”

This right to create money out of thin air was given to the Private Federal Reserve Bank by a fraudulent act of Congress in 1913 known as the Federal Reserve Act, same fraud has been happening since the 17th century with the Private Bank of England and other banks. The FED issues Federal Reserve cheques redeemable as Federal Reserve Notes only with no liability to itself. The Fed is not subject to taxes and full audits. The local banks create credit money as well, but not private currency notes any more. Read later about how the most central banks are privately owned outright or de-facto. Mr. Marriner Eccles, who was Chairman of the board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System longer than any other man, testified before the Joint Economic Committee in August 1962. When Chairman Rep. Wright Patman asked whether it was not a fact that the Federal Reserve System has more power than either the Congress or the President, Eccles replied: "*In the field of money and credit, yes."

A quote from a 1924 edition of the American Banker's Association Digest sums up what is currently happening:

Keep this in mind when you vote: "*When, through the process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men who are now engaged in forming imperialism to govern the World. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance."

The creation of US dollars from nothing by the Federal Reserve is mirrored by the World/Bank IMF creation of SDRs (special
drawing rights). It is estimated that the IMF has produced $30 billion dollars worth of SDR's so far. In the United States SDR's
are already accepted as legal money, and all other member nations are being pressured to follow suit. With SDR's being
partially backed by gold, a World gold standard is sneaking its way in through the back door, which comes with no objection
from the money changers who now hold two-thirds of the Worlds gold and can use this to structure the Worlds economy to
their further advantage.

Can there be any doubt what Amsel (Amschel) Bauer Mayer Rothschild meant in 1838 when he said:

“Give me control of the economics of a country; and I care not who makes her laws. The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from its profits or so dependant on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.”

His relative Nathan Rothschild said (1777-1836):

"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply."

David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations:

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a LUCIFERIAN Initiation."

[ithink]

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.

Whatever you say. Go read Benson's sermon on pride and compare it between what I am doing here and what you are doing here and see who is really prideful. What you need to understand is that I am not looking for answers from you, you have nothing for me. And if what you think of my "attitude" keeps you away from the truth, then so be it, but I don't think that is it. For some reason known only to you, you are unable to assimilate the truth and embrace it. I would love to embrace what you are saying, but if I did, like I said before, then we'd both be wrong. And that is just not how I fly. I could give you all kinds of references that compound interest is the culprit, including a Canadian Prime Minister, the Bible, a mathematician, books by economists, and simple logic. But I think, based on your performance up to now, you'd just trample them under foot, then say you explained everything already and I'm not listening. And now you're wasting all of our time with your childish tirade thinking I care "who" is right when I only care "what" is right.

I used to think about money like the masses until I learned the truth.
I used to think about debt like the masses until I learned the truth.
I used to think about compound interest until I learned the truth.

Somewhere in between thinking about debt and compound interest, is "I used to think like you". If I accept what you say Teancum, I would have to step back. Here is the difference between you and I. I have accepted the best information at times and moved ahead with it. What I'm saying to you is I have been there in the past with thinking like yours, and Lovesistruth, and Brian, or Original Intent. I'm sure you / they all mean the best, but it is disconcerting when you look at how difficult it is to convince people of what is real.

Ithink, since you are so smart and so far beyond everyone else's intellect on this forum, why don't you prove it?

Alright, you asked for it. In the spreadsheet, you will see that there is not enough money in circulation to pay the debt incurred by Mr. Smith.

bank_fraud.jpg (339.43 KiB) Viewed 837 times

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.

Not anymore. You can't go to the bathroom without permission from the government. And with what did you chop your wood? And is your example relevant to our modern world? You might as well be on the moon smacking two rocks together.

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.

Debunked. See the speadsheet.

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

A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such. Money is only money when acting as such. $500 billion in the bank is not in circulation. In terms of the money supply, it does not exist. Schooled again. You are a muddled thinker.

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.

I did refer you to the MPE website which has a spreadsheet that illustrates what I have been discussing, which has not been debunked since it was created for the Reagan administration -- which didn't debunk it either. In fact, it was created for them because they asked how long before the system imploded on itself. Anyway, I did your grade 5 math in the spreadsheet above. Read it and weep.

You say "Compound interest is the god of Abraham's idolatrous father," I say prove it. Prove? My history book says compound interest originated in Ur of the Chaldees, right when Abraham and his father were alive. Maybe your history book says otherwise, but that is what I read
You say even commodity-backed currency "will all be destroyed in the end," I say prove it. See above spreadsheet
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 ) See above spreadsheet
You say the Kirtland Bank "did not include compound interest," I say prove it. Joseph was put up on charges of printing "unauthorized paper money". Why would Joseph Smith be so stupid to just print money? Isn't that just evil?
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? Because the evil people would only understand something as evil as they were. Take the parable about building a house. Same situation. How many men among you don't start a house without first figuring the cost, lest it get part finished and you look like a complete idiot? Why was Christ talking about construction? Well, he wasn't! He was saying, you already do count the cost here in mortality, so why don't you put the same effort into what comes in the next life! Same situation with the parable with usury! You take so much care to make sure you make it in this life, why so little care for the next!!!Whether this had anything to do with the Romans, matters not. It has everything to do with the fact that Christ was standing on Roman ruled soil when he spoke those words. Additionally, who is defending the right to make money for nothing? Would you take away my ability to make a promise and follow through on it?

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. Maybe. Now I have a spreadsheet that proves the system is terminal. Thanks. 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??

Like I said before, these issues are so important and the problems in the world so pervasive that I won't accept anything from anyone without careful inspection, but the the same token, I won't accept anything from anyone simply because they have a title which is antithesis to the mormon majority mindset, and I also will entertain the opinion of anyone no matter how rude or polite I think they are. Simply put, what is rude to you is meaningless to someone else. I could "get polite" and someone else would wonder why I acquiesce without a fight. So it's all relative to me. You just happen to not like my style. Or, you are unwilling to accept the truth, and so switching to assailing the messenger get's you off the hook.

[ithink]

The only economics that requires complex math is bogus economics that use the complexity to hide the dishonesty.

Compund interest is what? 4th or 5th grade math? I'm not too shabby at math, or logic (state debate team back in the day, 10+years of computer programming as my primary career (almost all for the banking industry btw.) and I have a couple of the best (high school) mathematicians in the state at my beck and call to check anything that gets too complicated for me. But I say again, even implying that some kind of math genius is required to understand interest? Please.

See my spreadsheet. The problem we're dealing with is that we're trying to illustrate a system, but the system doesn't work. It's not that the math is bad, it's wrapping our minds around the fact that the system is broken. If you like the high end stuff, go to MPE and download their modeling program. If not, look at his spreadsheets and the one I posted, which anyone can understand.

[Original_Intent]

I've started reading "The Majesty of God's Law". There is a section regarding interest which I thought was applicable and I agree with.

Interest should not be charged on money lent to the needy. (This also seemed to imply that the needy should try to repay charity given to them if they can.)
Money lent for business ventures, there is nothing wrong with interest, and rates can be whatever both parties are willing to agree to. The text did mention usurious rates, but didn;t necessarily condemn them. Some ventures may be riskier than others, and certainly if there is a high risk that an investor could lose everything, expecting a higher return in the case of success is correct principle. (not to mention that the borrower may need to offer such higher rates to attract someone willing to lend.)

What we call consumer lending probably should not exist at all, except in the cases of providing for those in need.

And if you are saying that the governmentor its agents should not lend money into the economy (i.e. the money is created as debt) I agree with that, as that is the mechanism used to create money out of nothing. Money should always take effort to create, as that is the only way that it can be a fair exchange for other goods and services that also require effort to create. No man can or should be trusted with the ability to create fiat currency.

[ithink]

I've started reading "The Majesty of God's Law". There is a section regarding interest which I thought was applicable and I agree with.

Interest should not be charged on money lent to the needy. (This also seemed to imply that the needy should try to repay charity given to them if they can.)
Money lent for business ventures, there is nothing wrong with interest, and rates can be whatever both parties are willing to agree to. The text did mention usurious rates, but didn;t necessarily condemn them. Some ventures may be riskier than others, and certainly if there is a high risk that an investor could lose everything, expecting a higher return in the case of success is correct principle. (not to mention that the borrower may need to offer such higher rates to attract someone willing to lend.)

What we call consumer lending probably should not exist at all, except in the cases of providing for those in need.

And if you are saying that the governmentor its agents should not lend money into the economy (i.e. the money is created as debt) I agree with that, as that is the mechanism used to create money out of nothing. Money should always take effort to create, as that is the only way that it can be a fair exchange for other goods and services that also require effort to create. No man can or should be trusted with the ability to create fiat currency.

You make some good points and people would be tempted to compromise.

The critical point would be to ensure that the amount the bank creates is equal to the amount that is owed when loan is due. So if you were to say, I want 1% of the loan as a fee, I would say calculate that into the principal at the start and lend that to the person as well. Then the "interest" isn't really interest, it's a fee. I have no problem with fees. Fees are like your boat analogy, you get paid for the use of your boat, or raft. In this case there is no raft, but there is a cost associated with staffing a bank to perform this function of converting peoples promises into currency they can spend in the economy. This is moral and ethical, and legal. The incentive to work is still there, and since the majority of money is no longer going to the bankers, the economy can be sustained at the status quo level. This should please all the green planet lovers as well, since unless the economy is sustainable, the planet will be under ever increasing pressure to comply and since nature cannot sustain any exponential system (remember the bacteria), it will be destroyed if we don't stop what we are doing.

Keep in mind though that if you allow interest, it won't be long before compound interest creeps in again. If it's all bad, the let it all go. Nice reference to Skousens book, thank you, I was not aware of what it was saying on interest.

[Teancum-Old]

Alright, you asked for it. In the spreadsheet, you will see that there is not enough money in circulation to pay the debt incurred by Mr. Smith.

I did your grade 5 math in the spreadsheet above. Read it and weep.

Good. Now the only problem is that while this may include grade 5 math, it also takes bookeeping/accounting skills to understand this spreadsheet. While I definitely am capable of grade 5 math, understanding the logic of bookeeping is not my thing and most people don't know anything about bookeeping unless they put the effort into studying it. How an debit can be associated with an asset and how a credit can be associated with a liability is beyond my humble brain. I admit my weakness. But nice try, this is not purely grade 5 math so don't call it so any longer.

The example about the raft was simple enough for grade 5 math (and no need for bookkeeping skills) but you avoided debating that one here:

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.

Not anymore. You can't go to the bathroom without permission from the government. And with what did you chop your wood? And is your example relevant to our modern world? You might as well be on the moon smacking two rocks together.

You may claim that this example is not "relevant to our modern world" and state that I "might as well be on the moon smacking two rocks together" but that does not take away the fact that my labor alone can generate wealth. I don't have to request a loan from an all-powerful, corrupt banker in order to survive. Therefore, a loan can be paid for, interest, principal and all, by my labor. Thus paying off interest is mathematically possible and is not inherently evil. Besides, if all havoc does in fact wreck the world economy soon, as most of us agree (due to wickedness and corruption), then my scenario about raft building won't be to far out of line, will it? Regardless, the point is that LABOR GENERATES WEALTH, not loans.

I believe the original scenario with 10 people (one of which was a banker) also showed how labor can payoff wealth (those in debt can provide services through their labor to the banker). Although such examples may be claimed as unrealistic in today's economy, fact is that they are possible if our economy tumbles down to shambles. And in order to get at the core of these economic concepts, simplicity is necessary (or else we get bogged down in all the complexities). These scenarios both show how labor generates wealth and can pay off principal plus interest on loans.

ithink, it appears that you believe all loans TODAY are evil? If this is the case, do you believe the Church today does not participate in any business deals involving loans with interest? Sure, the Church pays most everything in cash, but I believe it also uses interest to its advantage in investments. President Grant was a profitable businessman too. Are you going to go so far as to say that he did not use interest to his advantage??

I simply cannot subscribe to the idea that all loans with interest are evil. The problem is when those loans are used in a wicked manner (25% interest charges are required by evil individuals!!). Interest is not evil; mankind makes it evil.

Lastly, you failed to prove your claims, as noted below.

You say "Compound interest is the god of Abraham's idolatrous father," I say prove it. Prove? My history book says compound interest originated in Ur of the Chaldees, right when Abraham and his father were alive. Maybe your history book says otherwise, but that is what I read. Again no proof offered.You say even commodity-backed currency "will all be destroyed in the end," I say prove it. See above spreadsheet Your spreadsheet assumes we understand bookeeping. I, for one cannot follow it. Will need some help. Sorry.
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 ) See above spreadsheet. See response above. You say the Kirtland Bank "did not include compound interest," I say prove it. Joseph was put up on charges of printing "unauthorized paper money". Why would Joseph Smith be so stupid to just print money? Isn't that just evil? Again no proof offered.

[Teancum-Old]

I've started reading "The Majesty of God's Law". There is a section regarding interest which I thought was applicable and I agree with.

Interest should not be charged on money lent to the needy. (This also seemed to imply that the needy should try to repay charity given to them if they can.)
Money lent for business ventures, there is nothing wrong with interest, and rates can be whatever both parties are willing to agree to. The text did mention usurious rates, but didn;t necessarily condemn them. Some ventures may be riskier than others, and certainly if there is a high risk that an investor could lose everything, expecting a higher return in the case of success is correct principle. (not to mention that the borrower may need to offer such higher rates to attract someone willing to lend.)

What we call consumer lending probably should not exist at all, except in the cases of providing for those in need.

And if you are saying that the governmentor its agents should not lend money into the economy (i.e. the money is created as debt) I agree with that, as that is the mechanism used to create money out of nothing. Money should always take effort to create, as that is the only way that it can be a fair exchange for other goods and services that also require effort to create. No man can or should be trusted with the ability to create fiat currency.

Good catch OI. I am also going through the same book. I think Skousen has it right; interest should have everything to do with assessing risk.

Creating money from nothing is evil. Hooking consumers into massive debts and then charging outrageous interest is evil. But, interest is not inherently evil. Depends how it is used.