[GJM] Replying to Peter Challen

[Rodney Shakespeare]

Dear Ashenopolitus,

It is always a pleasure to correspond with educated, open-minded and expert 
people like your good self.

1.  Where is the whopper when  I say the banking system creates money out of 
nothing and you say exactly the same?  Does your education and 
open-mindedness include being logical?  Is Steven Consilio being unfair in 
implictly accusing you of Orwellian double-think (the ability to hold two 
mutually exclusive ideas simultaneously)?

2.  Where is the whopper when I say that the banks do not create enough 
money for the repayment of interest?  I am sure that you can explain where 
in the process the banks create the money for the interest.

3.  Please display your expertise further in explaining your statement that, 
when interest is repaid, it is cancelled.

4. Please also explain how banks pay their employees etc if the interest 
the banks receive is cancelled.

5.  I am fascinated by your comments on riba/interest and the Qu'ran.  I 
have contact with many Islamic scholars and  the consensus is undoubtedly 
that interest is riba and that in ancient usage 'usury' generally refers to 
riba.  The modern usage of the word 'usury' (meaning 'excessive interest') 
is another matter.

6.  I am also completely fascinated by who you are and what interests you 
are (attempting) to represent.


Rodney Shakespeare


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Myro Ashenopolitus" <new_economics at yahoo.com>
To: <discussion at globaljusticemovement.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:40 PM
Subject: [GJM] Replying to Peter Challen


> Unfortunately, Peter, there are some whoppers from
> both Shakespeare and Yaseen in the first half of the
> program that will turn off educated and open minded
> people to the proposed solutions.
>
> For example, Shakespeare's assertion that "one of the
> problems of creating out of nothing is that it creates
> enough money for the principal of the loan but not
> enough for the interest."
>
> And Yaseen's assertion that "the Quran condemns
> categorically usury, or interest."
>
> First, to address Shakespeare's assertion:
>
> We say that banks create money because they credit
> deposit accounts when they create loans.  The ability
> and propensity to transfer deposit balances from
> person to person in transactions is what makes deposit
> accounts effectively money in today's economy.  So,
> when loans are granted, money is being created.  And,
> when loans are repaid, together with interest, money
> is being canceled.
>
> But there is a reciprocal monetary flow from the banks
> when they make payments for ordinary business
> expenses, salaries and wages to their employees,
> dividends to their stockholders, etc., where they also
> credit deposit account balances, which is additional
> to loans in the creation of money.  This puts money
> into circulation not deriving from loans that is
> available to pay interest to the banks in payment for
> financial services rendered.
>
> Now, to Yaseen's assertion:
>
> The ancient scriptures originally written in Semitic
> languages used two words that were erroneously
> translated or interpreted as "usury."
>
> A modern Islamic scholar in the United States writes
> this:
>
> http://www.submission.org/islam/interest-usury.html
>
> "The Quran forbids usury, not interest. Quite a few
> states in USA have laws against usury. Usury is
> defined as excessive interest. A Dictionary defines
> usury as 'an excessive or inordinate premium for the
> use of money borrowed',  'extortionate interest', or
> 'the practice of taking exorbitant or excessive
> interest.' The Arabic language also makes distinction
> between interest (Fa'eda) and usury (Reba). The Quran
> forbids Reba or usury."
>
> Which is perfectly consistent with the modern Jewish
> and Christian perspectives on the matter:
>
> http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/jones.usury
>
> "John Calvin's letter on usury of 1545 made it clear
> that when Christ said 'lend hoping for nothing in
> return,' He meant that we should help the poor freely.
> Following the rule of equity, we should judge people
> by their circumstances, not by legal definitions.
> Humanist that he was, Calvin knew there were two
> Hebrew words translated as 'usury.' One, neshek, meant
> 'to bite'; the other, tarbit, meant 'to take
> legitimate increase.' Based on these distinctions,
> Calvin argued that only 'biting' loans were forbidden.
> Thus, one could lend at interest to business people
> who would make a profit using the money. To the
> working poor one could lend without interest, but
> expect the loan to be repaid. To the impoverished one
> should give without expecting repayment."
> -
>
> Myro
>
>
> ---------------original message----------------- 
>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:23:12 +0000
> From: "Peter Challen" <peterchallen at googlemail.com>
> To: discussion at globaljusticemovement.net
> Subject: Re: [GJM] An excellent programme
>
> I've reached the half-way stage of the programme
> recommended below and use the 'break' to add my
> recommendation to this sanguine critique of a complex
> situation - a remarkable bit of broadcasting.
>
> Peter
>
> On 10/01/2008, Rodney Shakespeare
> <rodney.shakespeare1 at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All.
>
> Alright, I know I should not say this (because I am
> one of the speakers with Moeen Yaseen of
> Globalvision2000) but Global Money Crisis: Just Where
> Does the Buck Stop? is an excellent programme.  Moeen
> is tremendous!!
>
> At last we have managed to put across on television
> some analysis of what is wrong with the global economy
> and also put across some idea of the GJM solution.
>
> To see the programe:- go to www.Presstv.com then
> (left-hand side) Programs then The Agenda then Global
> Money Crisis: -- the programme on Monday, 9th January,
>
> 2008
>
> Rodney Shakespeare.
>
>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping