I have just finished a first read-through of the best article on usury I have ever seen published in the Catholic blogosphere, and I urge every Catholic truly concerned with the moral and theological implications of our presently-collapsing, usury-based global financial architecture, and the proper formation of our Catholic conscience on the matter, to read it.
I will have to think this one through several times, but I expect it will become an important source for me when- time permitting!- I am able to get back to the question of usury here at this blog.
The piece can be accessed here.
I agree completely that the teaching of "Vix Pervenit" remains the authoritative exercise of the magisterium on this question.
I question the legitimacy of interest applied to extrinsic titles, but Storck advances some source materials that require me to rethink this.
Highly recommended.
Thanks Rick. A very interesting and informative article for sure!
ReplyDeletePerhaps, you can bring into the discussion that humongous can of worms, otherwise known as derivatives.
James Phillips
Derivatives? Just a fancy name for gambling. Poker chips put out by casinos that don't even need an address. We could have set up a lemonade stand and run across the street to the pay phone and if we could find somebody to take the other side of our bet we could be a hedge fund.
ReplyDeleteThe temperature in downtown Kulala Lumpur at 11:57 am local time on March 3, 2039.
The price of pork bellies in Chicago on December 6, 2015.
On Wall Street they call it "risk management".
Right.
It has managed risk, all right.
Right onto the backs of the actual producers, the folks who create the wealth out of transforming nature, instead of placing bets.
Those are the ones whose pockets are picked every time the "risk management" turns out to be a billion and a half dollars vanished out of customer accounts at John Corzine's bankrupt "hedge fund".
The fundamental problem with our economy is usury.
Accept the notion that "money" can be lent out at "interest", and the "interest" requires the sucking of more and more actual physical wealth out of the pockets of those who create it, in order to satisfy the usurer's incredible fictitious demand that he receive something that doesn't exist, in exchange for something that does.
Once this foundational swindle is accepted, the rest follows pretty predictably.
Why not create the money out of thin air too, right from the git-go?
Then we can demand fictitious usury on fictitious money.
We can demand fictitious usury on fictitious money which we leverage 10-1; you put a dollar in my bank and I will lend out 90 cents of the created-out-of-thin-air money to some other fellow- who will pay usury on that, and deposit it in another bank, which will again leverage it 10-1......
and so on.
In 1987 the ability to create enough money out of thin air exceeded even the best efforts of the bankers, so money-creation-out-of-thin-air was extended to the Shadow Banking system (hedge funds chief among them).
This allowed hugely greater amounts of fictitious money to be created out of thin air, and without the pesky limitations which might from time to time be employed by things like government oversight or Congressional investigation.
It is all coming down, of course.
Europe today.
Us tomorrow.
Unless we find ourselves involved in a thermonuclear war first......
Will Rogers once remarked that we should be grateful we aren't getting all the government we're paying for.
That was before the usurers made it quite clear that they are the government; or more precisely, they will determine which of their employees are dispatched to look after the usurers' business for a few years.
There actually is some good news in all of this.
Once we have suffered enough, even we will probably begin to notice that the Church condemned this madness centuries ago.
"Will Rogers once remarked that we should be grateful we aren't getting all the government we're paying for." Will, the 33rd degree Mason, was quite the pundit, that's for sure.
ReplyDeleteHaving lived in Mexico and become fairly familiar with the history of the Cristeros, I recall how Will (along with American Ambassador Morrow who was the future father-in-law of Charles Lindbergh) was on a boisterous fun loving good will (excuse the pun) train tour in Mexico with the Masonic President of that country Plutarco Elias Calles exactly 2 days after Padre Pro was martyred as a result of Calles' execution order. Since Will claimed he never met a man he didn't like (and since we know, of course, that Masons never lie) must we conclude that Will just didn't meet many of the Mexicans who were slaughtered at the hands of the mini-anti-Christ Calles or perhaps that he simply liked some men a bit more than others?!
Viva Cristo Rey!
ReplyDeleteSuch as any other sort of published end result, article writing ought to conclusion having modifying. pay for essay
ReplyDelete