tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8878910878659094194.post6205342413929283439..comments2023-10-22T02:39:35.542-07:00Comments on Between The Lines: What to do about the banksPaul Donovanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13961744754991961304noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8878910878659094194.post-32202687038225106142012-07-19T03:35:33.725-07:002012-07-19T03:35:33.725-07:00Sent this to:
The Editor
The Universe
Dear Edit...Sent this to:<br />The Editor<br />The Universe<br /><br /> <br />Dear Editor<br /><br /> <br />I seldom agree with anything Paul Donovan writes, but his excoriation of the banks is spot-on. (15 July 2012). It may or may not be a "God-incidence" that the banks collapsed in 2008 within a week of end of the Jewish Sabbath-year, which traditionally triggered a release from all debts.<br /><br /> <br />As we know, the banks have enjoyed release from captivity, while the rest of us soldier on in debt-slavery. Now that the banks have been exposed as beneficiaries of the proceeds of the criminal manipulation of LIBOR and have been lending money out of funds in which those proceeds have been co-mingled, I should like to propose that these loans may not lawfully be recoverable.<br /><br /> <br />Canon 1543 of the Code of Canon Law in force until 1983 reflected the Church's traditional teaching concerning the sin and crime of usury. Suppose I give you a quantity of money or some other fungible - a thing sold by measure, number or weight - so that it becomes your property to spend or consume as you will. In return, you promise to return it later on in kind only.<br /><br /> <br />Exchange justice requires that things be traded at equal value. Any two quantities of the same fungible thing are of equal value if, and only if, they are of equal quantity.<br /><br /> <br />It follows that, if the lending of a principal sum is done in return for a contractual promise to pay for it in kind, the promise binds for the return of the principal, but not for anything more. A good title to interest can exist only if something of value additional to, and different from, the principal is given in exchange for a promise to pay it. The payment of interest cannot validly be contracted for as a percentage of the principal, or by reference to the term of the loan.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br />Yours faithfully<br /><br /><br /> <br />Michael PetekMichael Petekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16929740515032092225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8878910878659094194.post-11909478820760164262012-07-04T02:06:26.500-07:002012-07-04T02:06:26.500-07:00I have often been perplexed at the arguments put f...I have often been perplexed at the arguments put forward by the bankers for their high salaries: to recruit top people you need top salaries. Really? How does that work? What lies behind this argument is the assumption that the greediest people are the best. But hey, this is banking, so perhaps that argument is self-fulfilling. But why should greedy=good? Or greedy=ability? Are big-paid people the only ones with brains? Certainly they don't seem to be the ones with any kind of morality that considers equanimity a good thing. But why would you expect someone whose principle is to get as much money for themselves as possible (otherwise threats of 'going overseas' and 'we won't be able to keep them' are hollow) to be genuinely concerned, sacrificially concerned, even, with the welfare of ordinary people? Maybe Jesus knew a thing or two about money and its incipient power over people. If we had kept the usury laws we certainly wouldn't be in this mess, economically or environmentally.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com