wws@siemens.UUCP (William W Smith) (07/24/84)
In our last episode, the economy was described as "heading toward an economic crisis." The reason for the crisis are ample material for political and economic debates. I enter the debate pointing my finger at interest rates and gave some examples as evidence that interest rates are a culprit. In this episode, our narrator will present ideas, that in a world for which science has all the answers, should probably be dismissed as nonsense. In "The Dancing Wu Li Masters," by Gary Zukav, there are two chapters titled "Special Nonsense" [part 1, chapter 1] and "General Nonsense" [part 1, chapter 1] discussing relativity. Mine may be a lower form of nonsense than Einstein's, but "The importance of nonsense hardly can be overstated. The more clearly we experience something as 'nonsense,' the more clearly we are experiencing the boudaries of our own self-imposed cognitive structures. 'Nonsense' is that which does not fit into the prearranged patterns which we have super-imposed on reality. There is no such thing as 'nonsense' apart from a judgemental intellect which calls it that." [Part 1, Chapter 1, "Beginner's Mind"] One event that I saw last fall on TV struck home to me. They were interviewing farmers in the midwest who were loosing their farms to the banks. The banker said something like "It's too bad, but, THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE." I want to emphasize that phrase. It is true only as long as we are unwilling to be creative and question "facts" that are conventional wisdom and never evaluated. With hope, other possibilities could be considered. A theologian from a seminary in St. Louis (both names now in a black hole) gave a talk on "Grief in the Midst of Technique" at Purdue. He talked about how having a "system" that had all the answers was the enemy of hope. If you have all the answers and think you can solve any problem, the nature of the world is that you are wrong and by thus clinging to "technique," you deny hope for the future. Since he was a Christian theologian, he used examples from the Bible, primarily the Old Testament. His point was that God does not work through any "system." If an "establishment," whether it be political, socio-economic, scientific, religious (even main-line religious), a rational system, or a philosophy, has "all" the answeres, then God is not working through that establishment and hope will come from outside the establishment. The words "there's nothing that can be done" come from an establishment that has vested interests that are not in accordance with spiritual possibilities. I have grown a lot spiritually in the past year. (My memory for names could still use a bit of work though :-)) My growth has involved coming to terms with spiritual needs that I have found met by Christianity, prayer and the Bible. (Of course, other people grow in other ways. I guess my philosophy is that if their growth leads to happiness for them and their neighbors (defined as they want) and does not lead to unhappiness to me and my neighbors (defined as I want), then I won't complain to much. (questions of hedonistic ethics, please go to net.philosophy where you belong and I can ignore) ) (Isn't vi wonderful that you can check that all your nested paren's match.) Anyway, I mean to say that my ideas come from reading the Bible, so I am forced to make reference to it to describe my solution. An idea expressed throughout the Old Testament is that high interest rates and usury are wrong. A "sin" if you want to use such a harsh, unpopular word. I wasn't sure what the Bible meant by "exorbitant interest" at first. I was sure 15% was exorbitant, it used to be so even by our own laws. Then I read Nehemiah 5, verses 1 to 13. To paraphrase, the Israelites returning to Israel were suffering from a famine and had to borrow money to get grain. To the moneylenders, Nehemiah said, "You are exacting usury from your own coutrymen." [vs. 7, NIV] What was the interest charged? Nehemiah made them give back "the hundredth part of the money, grain, new wine and oil." [vs. 11, NIV] From this I interpret that any interest charged is excessive. In chapter 18 of Ezekial, the author describes a righteous man and one of the attributes was "He does not lend at usury or take excessive interest." [vs. 8 NIV] There is a note saying that an alternative translation does not contain the word excessive. Other attributes were also controversial "He does not commit robbery, but gives food to the hungry and provides clothing to the naked." [vs 7 NIV] Deuteronomy 23 says "Do not charge your brother interest whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest." [vs. 19 NIV] The next verse continues, "You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite." This may weaken my case, but I would remember the parable of the Good Samaritan before I decided who my brother was. With a better concordance, I could find other examples of interest (no pun intended). Psalm 15 is also relevant, but I won't reproduce it here. Admittedly, this is a radical proposal that probably won't ever be implemented. How could our economy function without interest? I speculate that dividends are acceptable and can not be considered usury. Although I am not an economist, perhaps dividends would be adequate to support a growing economy. For those of you who have pious friends who "live their lives in accordance to Biblical principal," I would show them Deuteronomy 5 and Leviticus 25. They tell the Israelites that every 50 years all land should be returned to its ancestral owners and every 7 years debts should be forgiven. Is there a connection with the Lord's Prayer saying: "Forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors."? [Matthew 6:12, NIV] I wouldn't be surprised if most of them would say something equivalent to "The Old Testament is an ancient and dusty book. It says things I don't like and I only look at the parts that are nice." Bill Smith princeton!siemens!wws "Am I very wrong to hide behind the glare of an open mind?" Genesis, "Am I Very Wrong," In the Beginning And now a word from our sponsors..... ______________________________________________________________________ "The Dancing Wu Li Masters," Bantam Books, quoted with out permission. ______________________________________________________________________ NIV: Taken from the HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (c) 1978 by the New York International Bible Society, used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers. ______________________________________________________________________
wws@siemens.UUCP (William W Smith) (07/27/84)
> One event that I saw last fall on TV struck home to me. They were > interviewing farmers in the midwest who were loosing their farms to the > banks. The banker said something like "It's too bad, but, THERE'S NOTHING > THAT CAN BE DONE." I just found a passage from the New Testament that is relevant to my claim that the banker was misled when he said nothing could be done. To wit: Luke 7, vs. 41-42 "Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii [500 days wages] and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he cancelled the debts of both." I can't imagine a more clear statement that it is possible to be just with those who owe us money, that it is a possible course to take a debt as lost without ruining the lives of the debtor. Bill Smith ihnp4!mhuxi!princeton!siemens!wws
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (07/28/84)
> > One event that I saw last fall on TV struck home to me. They were > > interviewing farmers in the midwest who were loosing their farms to the > > banks. The banker said something like "It's too bad, but, THERE'S NOTHING > > THAT CAN BE DONE." > > I just found a passage from the New Testament that is relevant to my claim > that the banker was misled when he said nothing could be done. > > To wit: Luke 7, vs. 41-42 > > "Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five > hundred denarii [500 days wages] and the other fifty. Neither of them > had the money to pay him back, so he cancelled the debts of both." > > I can't imagine a more clear statement that it is possible to be just with > those who owe us money, that it is a possible course to take a debt as > lost without ruining the lives of the debtor. > > Bill Smith > ihnp4!mhuxi!princeton!siemens!wws Well, isn't that a nice, noble idea. Trouble is, the money the banker would be giving away by forgiving debtors is not his money; it's mine (or yours, if you have money in the bank). If a banker wants to be generous, it should come out of his own pocket. Charity performed with other people's money, and without their permission, isn't charity. David Canzi, watmath!dmcanzi