Join us now. It is free, and it takes less than 1 minute to register.
Register now
Subscribe to our daily newsletter. It is free, and it comes with many benefits.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910
Results 136 to 150 of 150

Thread: Article: Cyril Cosying Up To Saudi Arabia Causes Controversy

  1. #136
    Super Grandmaster crackersa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    28,528
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sly21C View Post
    Usury doesn't mean "excessive interest", it means "interest", plain and simple.
    Seems you can’t read English.

  2. #137
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pretoria
    Posts
    4,537
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToxicBunny View Post
    Ok, so the dictionary is wrong then?
    Okay
    "We are taught to accept whatever we are told as true, no questions. The more official the source is, the more likely the majority will believe." - Nanfeishen

  3. #138
    Super Grandmaster crackersa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    28,528
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToxicBunny View Post
    Ok, so the dictionary is wrong then?
    Yes, it’s attacking Islam.

  4. #139
    Super Grandmaster ToxicBunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Crimetown
    Posts
    69,819
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sly21C View Post
    Okay
    I'm at least trying to engage in vaguely constructive debate.. the fact that you can't do the same even though you know I'm merely entertaining myself says volumes about how confident you actually are in the drivel you spew forth on this forum.
    Quote Originally Posted by MidnightWizard View Post
    I must be retarded then

  5. #140
    Super Grandmaster crackersa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    28,528
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  6. #141
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pretoria
    Posts
    4,537
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToxicBunny View Post
    I'm at least trying to engage in vaguely constructive debate.. the fact that you can't do the same even though you know I'm merely entertaining myself says volumes about how confident you actually are in the drivel you spew forth on this forum.
    Okay
    "We are taught to accept whatever we are told as true, no questions. The more official the source is, the more likely the majority will believe." - Nanfeishen

  7. #142
    Super Grandmaster ToxicBunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Crimetown
    Posts
    69,819
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sly21C View Post
    Okay
    So you agree then that you aren't confident in the drivel?
    Quote Originally Posted by MidnightWizard View Post
    I must be retarded then

  8. #143
    Super Grandmaster Hamish McPanji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Jhb
    Posts
    32,907
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Lol. I think y'all is being taken for a ride.
    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

    - Benjamin Franklin

  9. #144
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pretoria
    Posts
    4,537
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToxicBunny View Post
    So you agree then that you aren't confident in the drivel?
    Okay
    "We are taught to accept whatever we are told as true, no questions. The more official the source is, the more likely the majority will believe." - Nanfeishen

  10. #145
    Super Grandmaster ToxicBunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Crimetown
    Posts
    69,819
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamish McPanji View Post
    Lol. I think y'all is being taken for a ride.
    Honestly, I would usually have thought so as well.. but Sly is pretty consistent in his obsession with these theories..
    Quote Originally Posted by MidnightWizard View Post
    I must be retarded then

  11. #146
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pretoria
    Posts
    4,537
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    https://study.com/academy/lesson/wha...tory-quiz.html

    Historically, and specifically in the old English law, usury did not mean the practice of charging unreasonably high interest, but instead merely referred to*any*interest amount charged for a money loan.
    The following link is to a very long article, happy reading.
    https://mises.ro/978/the-ethics-of-u...banking-system
    "We are taught to accept whatever we are told as true, no questions. The more official the source is, the more likely the majority will believe." - Nanfeishen

  12. #147
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pretoria
    Posts
    4,537
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamish McPanji View Post
    Lol. I think y'all is being taken for a ride.
    How so?
    "We are taught to accept whatever we are told as true, no questions. The more official the source is, the more likely the majority will believe." - Nanfeishen

  13. #148
    Super Grandmaster Hamish McPanji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Jhb
    Posts
    32,907
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sly21C View Post
    How so?
    Except you
    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

    - Benjamin Franklin

  14. #149
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pretoria
    Posts
    4,537
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crackersa View Post
    I know how to google!

    https://www.google.com/search?source...49.CGMVYCc5nDA

    But you still don’t provide proof. You sound like santurnz
    Read this also, if you can absorb and comprehend.

    https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com...st-free-money/


    The love of money is the root of many evils. Usury is the weaponization of the love of money. It feeds the avarice of the usurer. It forces ever more debtors into ever more immoral behavior. It replaces love with commerce. It corrupts commerce, which becomes ever more exploitative to pay off ever higher interest charges. It is the foundation of rent-seeking. It rips apart the fabric of society. It makes a mockery of any kind of social contract.

    It causes hunger. Bankruptcies. Intense stress in families. Weighs especially heavily on the poor and leads to all sorts of excesses at the top. Billions of people live in abject poverty all over the world because of it. Entire communities, nations are gutted to pay the interest to the opulent. Nobody counts those dying prematurely from its effects. They are billions.

    The many pay to the few. The poor pay to the middle class, who pay to the rich, who pay to the opulent. Poor countries pay ten times more interest on their foreign debts than they receive development aid.

    Even when not in debt, forty percent of our income is lost to interest passed on in prices by producers. The many pay anywhere between five and ten trillion per year to the wealthy. All other rents ultimately are based on cost for capital and would hardly exist without usury.

    It is the ultimate centralizer of power and it is global. It has been growing for centuries at compound interest rate speed, and now it is such an incredible cancer it is ready to swallow the remains of the host it has been feeding on.

    The European nations put up $4,5 Trillion in handouts, easy credit and guarantees to ‘save’ their banks and the euro. The Fed provided an unimaginable $16 trillion dollars in easy credit to its banking buddies. Much of it was never repaid. This is ‘necessary’ because without banks we would not have money. So the West put up $20 trillion to have some bits and bytes and paper and coins circulate to exchange goods and services.

    Surely the end of our civilization is near, when we allow such rapacious plunder to be sold with such a stupendous lie. While we simultaneously say there is no money to save the poor from starvation and the Earth from pollution.

    The whole thing is totally senseless
    We think: “without interest there will be no credit! I would not lend if I didn’t get anything back.”

    But the Money Power doesn’t lend anything!

    Money is just bookkeeping and credit is an automatic result of double entry bookkeeping, which by its very nature knows debit and credit.

    The problem is not the creation of money! Quite the opposite: it’s marvelous that we never need to have a shortage of money.

    The problem is when the bookkeeper starts raping the debitor with interest for no other reason than the associated minus. And takes all this interest himself. Just for the service of bookkeeping!

    We pay $300k in interest in thirty years for our $200k mortgage which was created by entering some numbers in a computer bookkeeping application!

    Gold solves nothing
    We don’t want to pay $300k interest in coin! We want bookkeeping at cost-price! Interest-free!

    Even in ancient times Gold and Silver were circulated by private parties. This is touted as a wonderful free market operation. But who circulated the specie? Those owning the mines, of course!

    They circulated the metal by lending it out at interest and manipulated the volume from day one.

    Today nobody knows how much Gold there is. All the Gold mines are owned and controlled by the Money Power. Those owning the mines are the Money Power, that’s how it all started. Vast amounts of Gold are in their vaults, ready to be unleashed onto the market through usurious lending, aiming to create asset bubbles, only to stop lending a little later to create a deflationary crash when people pay off their loans.

    It is exactly the same way they create the boom-bust cycle with paper based money.

    Just look at what they are doing to Gold today. They have been doing this forever.

    The Golden Calf is the archetypal symbol of avarice, the Money Power is unthinkable without it.

    Jesus admonished us to lend freely, expecting nothing in return. The Vedas abhor usury. Moses forbade it. Half of the Q’uran is Allah threatening severe punishment for those taking Usury.

    Money is bookkeeping. We don’t need interest for savers. The bank doesn’t need savers. Debit and Credit are the two sides of the coin in bookkeeping. They are automatic.

    Yes, the volume must be managed, but that is unavoidable. No monetary system can exist without managing volume. The problem is not management, it is allowing vultures to do it.

    The reason we have a boom-bust cycle is because we allowed private parties, banks, to manage the volume in their own interest. They set up Central Banks to create the illusion of ‘officialdom’.

    Saying ‘the market must do it’ is saying the Plutocracy has been doing a good job over the last 5000 years.

    We want interest-free mortgages, no income tax, no poverty. We want abundance, good will, a cultural rebirth, fairness and the end of Plutocracy.
    "We are taught to accept whatever we are told as true, no questions. The more official the source is, the more likely the majority will believe." - Nanfeishen

  15. #150
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pretoria
    Posts
    4,537
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crackersa View Post
    I’m still waiting for you to provide who does usury?
    http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...val_econo.html


    The prohibition of usury has always occupied such a large place in histories of the Middle Ages, and particularly in discussions relating to the attitude of the Church towards economic questions, that it is important that its precise foundation and extent should be carefully studied. The usury prohibition has been the centre of so many bitter controversies, that it has almost become part of the stock-in-trade of the theological mob orators. The attitude of the Church towards usury only takes a slightly less prominent place than its attitude towards Galileo in the utterances of those who are anxious to convict it of error. We have referred to this current controversy, not in order that we might take a part in it, but that, on the contrary, we might avoid it. It is no part of our purpose in our treatment of this subject to discuss whether the usury prohibition was or was not suitable to the conditions of the Middle Ages; whether it did or did not impede industrial enterprise and commercial expansion; or whether it was or was not universally disregarded and evaded in real life. These are inquiries which, though full of interest, would not be in place in a discussion of theory. All we are concerned to do in the following pages is to indicate the grounds on which the prohibition of usury rested, the precise extent of its application, and the conceptions of economic theory which it indicated and involved.

    We must remark in the first place that the prohibition of usury was in no sense peculiar to the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, but, on the contrary, was to be found in many other religious and legal systems--for instance, in the writings of the Greek and Roman philosophers, amongst the Jews, and the followers of Mohammed. We shall give a very brief account of the other prohibitions of usury before coming to deal with the scholastic teaching on the subject.

    We can find no trace of any legal prohibition of usury in ancient Greece. Although Solon's laws contained many provisions for the relief of poor debtors, they did not forbid the taking of interest, nor did they limit the rate of interest that might be taken. In Rome the Twelve Tables fixed a maximum rate of interest, which was probably ten or twelve per cent, per annum, but which cannot be determined with certainty owing to the doubtful signification of the expression 'unciarum foenus.' The legal rate of interest was gradually reduced until the year 347 B.C., when five per cent, was fixed as a maximum. In 342 B.C. interest was forbidden altogether by the Genucian Law; but this law, though never repealed, was in practice quite inoperative owing to the facility with which it could be evaded; and consequently the oppression of borrowers was prevented by the enactment, or perhaps it would be more correct to say the general recognition, of a maximum rate of interest of twelve per cent. per annum. This maximum rate--the*Centesima--remained in operation until the time of Justinian. Justinian, who was under the influence of Christian teaching, and who might therefore be expected to have regarded usury with unfavourable eyes, fixed the following maximum rates of interest--maritime loans twelve per cent.; loans to ordinary persons, not in business, six per cent.; loans to high personages (illustres) and agriculturists, four per cent.

    While the taking of interest was thus approved or tolerated by Greek and Roman law, it was at the same time reprobated by the philosophers of both countries. Plato objects to usury because it tends to set one class, the poor or the borrowers, against another, the rich or the lenders; and goes so far as to make it wrong for the borrower to repay either the principal or interest of his debt. He further considers that the profession of the usurer is to be despised, as it is an illiberal and debasing way of making money. While Plato therefore disapproves in no ambiguous words of usury, he does not develop the philosophical bases of his objection, but is content to condemn it rather for its probable ill effects than on account of its inherent injustice.

    Aristotle condemns usury because it is the most extreme and dangerous form of chrematistic acquisition, or the art of making money for its own sake. As we have seen above, in discussing the legitimacy of commerce, buying cheap and selling dear was one form of chrematistic acquisition, which could only be justified by the presence of certain motives; and usury, according to the philosopher, was a still more striking example of the same kind of acquisition, because it consisted in making money from money, which was thus employed for a function different from that for which it had been originally invented. 'Usury is most reasonably detested, as the increase of our fortune arises from the money itself, and not by employing it for the purpose for which it was intended. For it was devised for the sake of exchange, but usury multiplies it. And hence usury has received the name of [Greek: tokos], or produce; for whatever is produced is itself like its parents; and usury is merely money born of money; so that of all means of money-making it is the most contrary to nature.' We need not pause here to discuss the precise significance of Aristotle's conceptions on this subject, as they are to us not so much of importance in themselves, as because they suggested a basis for the treatment of usury to Aquinas and his followers.

    In Rome, as in Greece, the philosophers and moralists were unanimous in their condemnation of the practice of usury. Cicero condemns usury as being hateful to mankind, and makes Cato say that it is on the same level of moral obliquity as murder; and Seneca makes a point that became of some importance in the Middle Ages, namely, that usury is wrongful because it involves the selling of time. Plutarch develops the argument that money is sterile, and condemns the practices of contemporary money-lenders as unjust. The teaching of the philosophers as to the unlawfulness of usury was reflected in the popular feeling of the time.

    Sec. 2.*Usury in the Old Testament

    The question of usury therefore attracted considerable attention in the teaching and practice of pagan antiquity. It occupied an equally important place in the Old Testament. In Exodus we find the first prohibition of usury: 'If thou lend money to any of my people being poor, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor, neither shall ye lay upon him usury.' In Leviticus we read: 'And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his hand fail with thee; then, thou must uphold him; as a stranger and a sojourner shall he live with thee. Take thou no money of him or increase, but fear thy God that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor give him victuals for increase.' Deuteronomy lays down a wider prohibition: 'Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent upon usury; unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon usury, but unto thy brother thou mayest not lend upon usury.' It will be noticed that the first and second of these texts do not forbid usury except in the case of loans to the poor, and, if we had them alone to consider, we could conclude that loans to the rich or to business men were allowed. The last text, however, extends the prohibition to all loans to one's brother--an expression which was of importance in Christian times, as Christian writers maintained the universal brotherhood of man.

    It is unnecessary for us to discuss the underlying considerations which prompted these ordinances. Dr. Cleary, who has studied the matter with great care, concludes that: 'The legislator was urged mostly by economic considerations.... The permission to extract usury from strangers--a permission which later writers, such as Maimonides, regarded as a command--clearly favours the view that the legislator was guided by economic principles. It is more difficult to say whether he based his legislation on the principle that usury is intrinsically unjust--that is to say, unjust even when taken in moderation. There is really nothing in the texts quoted to enable us to decide. The universality of the prohibition when there is question solely of Jews goes to show that usury as such was regarded as unjust; whilst its permission as between Jew and Gentile favours the contradictory hypothesis.' Modern Jewish thought is inclined to hold the view that these prohibitions were based upon the assumption that usury was intrinsically unjust, but that the taking of usury from the Gentiles was justified on the principle of compensation; in other words, that Jews might exact usury from those who might exact it from them. It is at least certain that usury was regarded by the writers of the Old Testament as amongst the most terrible of sins...................
    "We are taught to accept whatever we are told as true, no questions. The more official the source is, the more likely the majority will believe." - Nanfeishen

+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910

Similar Threads

  1. The future of Saudi Arabia
    By skyhawk in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-06-2016, 01:09 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-12-2015, 03:11 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-07-2011, 01:37 PM
  4. JOB: MIS Lecturer (Saudi Arabia)
    By rpm in forum Classifieds - For Sale
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 29-06-2009, 11:20 PM
  5. [Saudi Arabia] I need some help please !
    By e15e in forum Vodacom Mobile Data
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 13-12-2007, 02:50 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •