Magna Carta stated "applying interest to a loan, shall be punishable with Death"

This transaction changed the financial world into what it has become today.

We cannot even withdraw our own funds from our own accounts without being charged.

What a fantastic system, and very fair. :dubya:

Indigo

what you fail to realize is the modern banking system has made possible better lives for all as economies have grown geometrically since that time in history.

I'm not saying I agree w/ 30% cc debt....but money is an asset...just like a mule.

58

I never disputed the fact that money is an asset. What i am concerned with is the way our 'rulers' have managed it over the years- Thats all.

Peace

Our monetary system has made life better and worse. Although, imo, money in itself is neutral, how it is used is what gives it power. We have allowed money to become a tool of greed and materialism instead of a symbol of services exchanged and energy flowing. Money in and of itself does neither good deeds nor bad, people make choices, use money for greater good or for selfishness. Interest charged on "loans" does not, imo, benefit the greater whole; it gives all the power to the few who control the money and they do not give a sh!t about any thing but their own selfish needs at the expense of all other life.

Quester



Spot on.

In Lak'ech

But Quester, without "loans" would you be living in that house, would you be driving that car, would you have gotten that education?


there should be a cap of 18% however, not 30%.

loaning money then loading the repayments with interest is daylight robbery.......Stand and deliver, your money or your life.

Peace

if you loan an asset would not expect some remuneration for "loss of use" of that asset?

should you be able to live in an apoartment rent free?

there must be an incentive for someone to bulid an apatrment complex (rent + capital appreciation, just as there must be an incentive to loan money (interest/repayment of principal).

Now, I will take your side in the argument that interest rates are way to high, but thats a separate issue.

The incentive should be to give less fortunate people than ourselves- homes to live in.

In Lak'ech

I have no cc, no loans, I pay my rent every month. I am looking to rent to own land or find someone willing to hold deed until payment complete. I operate on cash and if i loan someone money it is never more then I can afford to lose, interest free too.
But this is how I choose to live, It works for me and creates no harm or debt.

so, you advocate socialism then?

I would like everyone to have a home as well.

But who is to do the giving?

will it be you? will you sell your home, your car, your possessions to build a home for the homeless?

"I have no cc, no loans, I pay my rent every month. I am looking to rent to own land or find someone willing to hold deed until payment complete. I operate on cash and if i loan someone money it is never more then I can afford to lose, interest free too.
But this is how I choose to live, It works for me and creates no harm or debt."

but the rent you are paying is "interest" on the asset you are using, comprende?

and without loans, that apartment you are living in wouldn't exist.

and without loans that apartment you live in would not exist.

Only because the financial world, in recent history, has dictated that this is the way things are.

It is this being questioned.

In Lak'ech

Actually the home I live in was given by the man who built it, to the local old folks home when he died. This "asset" buys an awful lot for those elders and what is not spent sits in an account to pay taxes and maintenance costs. The amount of "interest" that is paid to this savings (which the bank holds, considers an asset, and loans people money against)is absolutely pitiful when compared to the interest charged on one of this bank's loans.

"Only because the financial world, in recent history, has dictated that this is the way things are.

It is this being questioned."

This is an incorrect statement.

I agree w/ quest that the spread between interest charged and interest paid is obscene.

Well I guess they could change to a bank that pays higher interest on savings, but that will just rape someone else down the road.

Quester.

The banks seem to be in collusion w/ the interest spreads. Even the local credit union is paying squat, even though short rates have tripled in the last 12 months.

58

I would like to draw your attention back to the original theme of this thread.

The Bank of England was first formed in 1694. King William of Orange was in financial difficulties as a result of a war with France. The Goldsmiths "lent him" 1.2 million pounds (a staggering amount in those days) with certain conditions:

1.The interest rate was to be 8%. It must be remembered that Magna Carta stated that the charging or collecting of interest carried the death penalty.


Peace

So King Bill Says to these rich goldsmith guys "Man I am so broke, Can I borrow some money till I get back on my feet, then I'll pay you back."
The goldsmith guys say "Well what's in it for us? We won't have use of that money for XX years."
I guess at the time it made sense to old Bill that the goldsmith guys should be compensated for the potential loss of use of the monies loaned.
That is what interest charges are - compensation for potential loss of use.
But as most monetary transactions are now just paper and electronics this outrageous fee is just down right greedy and self serving, and benefiting an elite few to the complete disregard for life.

Quester

Good Ole Billy the *^$"(/*!

Peace

Great thread, I've enjoyed but I must get ready for work. bye

Thankyou Quester.

In Lak'ech

Interesting, Indigo454!


Rap wif ya' later.

Rock

Look forward to that Rock.

Peace

Indigo454 says:

"1...It must be remembered that Magna Carta stated that the charging or collecting of interest carried the death penalty."

That is simply not true. Here is a translation of the Magna Carta,along with the original (which I can read, albeit slowly):

[link to www.bl.uk]

If you go through it, the only place it even mentions interest is in section 10:

"10. Si quis mutuo ceperit aliquid a Judeis, plus vel minus, et moriatur antequam debitum illud solvatur, debitum non usuret quamdiu heres fuerit infra etatem, de quocumque teneat; et si debitum illud inciderit in manus nostras, nos non capiemus nisi catallum contentum in carta."

In English:

"(10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond."

This is implicit in permitting the charging of interest on a debt, even if you're a (gasp!) Jew.

Indigo you clearly have no clue about basic business principles. Why would anyone risk lending money without any return? The economy simply cannot function without interest. Money has a time value or do you not understand that?

Exactly. Paying interest is paying 'rent' on the money you use, just like you would pay 'rent' on an apartment you use.

Duncan

I appreciate your forum police activity and think you do an admiral job in your quest to honor every little detail of any statement made.

The point was really more about William Of Orange signing the Charter for the Bank Of England and assigning this Charter to the Goldsmiths.

An act which has had far reaching implications, financially for whole of humanity, but especially for the money-grabbing global elite.

Peace

Just a few more points from the Magna Carta.......

Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any other purpose, without the consent of the owner.

To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these.

In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs. It shall be given gratis, and not refused.


How things change

"I appreciate your forum police activity and think you do an admiral job in your quest to honor every little detail of any statement made."

If you make a comment that is simiply incorrect, AND that comment is the entire thrust of the thread, then why SHOULDN'T you draw their attention to it. It sounds to me like you would prefer your initial ideas, even if they're wrong. We can't very well be "seekers after truth" that way!

"The point was really more about William Of Orange signing the Charter for the Bank Of England and assigning this Charter to the Goldsmiths."

William of Orange lived in the late seventeenth/early eighteenth century, about four hundred fifty years after the charter was written and signed.

I don't understand you posts, Indigo454. It seems like you want to convince people of your ideas (which is fine by me), yet the "facts" you use to support your theses are quite often incorrect.

I don't think that's right, somehow.