Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Selling up

Religious Leaders Unite Against High Interest Rates

Recommended Posts

Heard the one about the rabbi, the imam and the priest...

From the Guardian:

Have you heard the one about the rabbi, the imam and the priest – and the trip they took together to the bank? If you're waiting for the punchline, that will come this morning, when an unlikely platoon of religious leaders will march on the City headquarters of the Royal Bank of Scotland armed not with bricks but books. Three to be precise: the Torah, the Qur'an and the New Testament. They'll be delivering them to the RBS chairman, Sir Philip Hampton – but not in a friendly way. They're meant as a warning to the titans of finance that a campaign is coming, one that starts today in both Britain and the United States, aimed at changing the way banks do business by reviving a law as old as money itself.

The law in question is the prohibition on usury. You're forgiven for stumbling on the word: the notion has fallen into such disuse, the word itself seems to come from an alien, if not dead, language. Yet it contains a powerful and simple idea: that there should be limits on the amount a lender can charge a borrower and that to charge too much interest is immoral.

It's a word that also carries some awkward baggage. For centuries, Jews' lives were made miserable by the accusation that they were usurers, an insult often hurled by the very Christian authorities who had forced Jews into moneylending by denying them access to any other livelihood. So it has extra poignance that today's march on RBS will begin at Bevis Marks, Europe's oldest functioning synagogue, and that its rabbi, Natan Asmoucha, is one of the cause's most impassioned advocates. "Any anti-usury campaign that does not involve Jews risks becoming an antisemitic campaign," says Maurice Glasman, a leading activist with London Citizens, the alliance of trade unionists, voluntary organisations and religious groups that is spearheading the UK effort.

Even before they've started, there's something to applaud here. It's refreshing for Jews and Muslims, in particular, to be working together – "exciting", says Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari of the Muslim Council of Britain – and for these communities to be engaged in interfaith action rather than another round of earnest tea-sipping in the name of "dialogue".

Organisers say it's already striking a chord. In the US, the Industrial Areas Foundation – the Chicago-based movement that trained a young Barack Obama to be a community organiser – has convened 10,000 meetings on usury. The ambition is to do for personal debt what Jubilee 2000 did for international debt, to bring the issue of extortionate, exploitative borrowing back home.

Those suffering first hand need no such reminder. Take Dan Pitt, a publican on the Bow Road in east London. He took out a Virgin Money credit card at what seemed, initially, to be a reasonable rate. But then envelopes started arriving, unsolicited, each one containing multiple Virgin cheques worth thousands of pounds. He called Virgin, telling them he didn't want to borrow any more money. But the cheques kept coming. Eventually, short of cash, having fixed up the pub garden, he succumbed. He cashed a £4,000 cheque.

The rate on that was higher than he expected. Then Virgin told him that, if he wanted to carry on using his card, interest would jump to more than 22%. He said no, but now he's enduring the "endless torment" of Virgin calling him several times each day as he tries to clear his debt. Just yesterday he had the gas company threatening to cut him off.

Stories like his are heartbreakingly familiar. Many Britons got an insight last week, thanks to the compelling BBC drama Freefall, with its tale of a minimum-wage security guard enticed to borrow for a house he couldn't afford and eventually evicted by predatory interest rates. In the US last year, 1.2 million people filed for bankruptcy, hardly a surprise in a society where consumer debt has increased by 733% since 1980.

That year is significant. Until then, anti-usury laws were still on the US statute book, as they had been since 1776, capping the amount lenders could charge. And those laws were in a long, long tradition. The Code of Hammurabi, written in Babylon 17 centuries before Jesus, barred excessive interest. The Book of Exodus is no less stringent: "If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, do not act to them as a creditor, extract no interest from them." Luke's gospel insists we "lend without expecting any return", while the Qur'an instructs believers to "fear Allah, and give up what remains of your demand for usury". Of course, these strictures were not always honoured; people can always find ways to comply with the letter of religious law while breaking its spirit. But the guiding sentiment is unambiguous.

And that ideal has never been the exclusive preserve of religious types. Plato and Aristotle denounced usury; ancient Rome capped interest at 8.33% (a shade above the 8% limit sought by London Citizens), a rule that endured for more than a thousand years.

Only Britain was in a hurry to scrap usury laws, ditching them in the 17th century under pressure from – surprise, surprise – the burghers of the City of London, who claimed that they could barely pay for the orphans in their care. For the sake of the poor little waifs, the bankers needed to rack up interest rates. And so began the City's transformation into a commercial universe free from all but the most feeble moral constraints.

Now, nearly 300 years later, it's surely time to put the cap back on. It can't be too much to ask that banks which currently borrow from the Bank of England at a rate of 0.5% lend it out at no more than 8%: they'd still be charging customers 16 times more for money than they had paid for it. (And sometimes, thanks to the joys of quantitative easing, the banks are in effect paying nothing at all for the cash that lands in their accounts and which they then lend on.)

The trouble is, it has been too much to ask. The banks have proven that they cannot be trusted to restrain their own greed: when even a respected, high street bank demands 22% in interest on money it all but shoved in a customer's hand, you know that any appeals to the bankers' better angels will be futile. The better angels packed up their bags and gave up long ago.

Some will say that we should save all this talk for the pulpit, that it's all very well in the realm of moral exhortation but it has no place in the real world of hard-headed economics. But London Citizens's Glasman has a good retort: "What the crash has revealed is that it's the bankers who've been living in a fantasy world of virtual money, where money has no relation to assets and no connection to the real economy." Besides, this is not some abstract moral issue, relevant only to the theology seminars soon to be attended by the City minister Paul Myners. It is all too real: just ask Dan Pitt.

It is telling that the lead voices in this new effort are from mosques, inner-city churches and synagogues. The politicians have been left looking flummoxed by the financial crisis, apparently desperate for normal business to resume as soon as possible. It has been left to the Pope to offer the most comprehensive critique of our devastated economic landscape, in his latest encyclical. But those facing crippling debts will not be too bothered by that. When people are desperate, they will take leadership from wherever they can get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm I thought Usury usually said ALL interest was bad, not just high rates?

Next news: Church protests about coveting "too many" of the neighbour's wives at once

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm I thought Usury usually said ALL interest was bad, not just high rates?

Next news: Church protests about coveting "too many" of the neighbour's wives at once

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just a wilde guess - But are they all living in rather large grace and favour palaces and exempt from taxes under the Charities Act?

Perhaps we could start with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is just VI spin. Think of the property they own.

They know it was low rates that caused the asset bubble.

There are sound reasons for capping interest rates on loans. Indeed, the whole idea about why this would be good was recently discussed on Karl Denninger's blog.

If interest charges are capped at say base rate + 10%, then it puts a limit on to how much risk a lender is willing to take. If you can't make a profit on a 10% margin, in effect you are saying that you are not confident in being repaid. In one go, you destroy the subprime and other speculative loans that have been the cause for the bubble of recent years and the subsequent collapse when these loans inevitably default.

The only refinement needed is that the retail rate would need to track the base rate so that interest rates could rise to combat inflation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ORganised religion is mostly about control -religious leaders are merely protecting the feeble of mind from their own financial errors, so they can claim more control over them. 'Look I did you a favour, it wasn't your fault, now give me your soul'.

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?
The CofE is one of the biggest land owners in the UK.

Is hypocrisy a sin?

The Church of England and the property market boom

We're always being told that people are surprised to learn the Church of England owns a lot of land - I can only assume that these people were asleep when they were being taught history about the Tudors. Even this link is confusing - connecting Church of England land ownership with the early Christians.

The Church of England acquired the lands expropriated by Henry 8th - any fule knoe this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm I thought Usury usually said ALL interest was bad, not just high rates?

Next news: Church protests about coveting "too many" of the neighbour's wives at once

It might be in Islam (although I understand this is debatable), but it isn't in Judaism or Christianity.

The Old Testament put its in the context of using it as a way of enslaving the poor, they are talking about loansharking and bonded labour but I suppose you could choose to generalise on from that although its clear from the New Testament that it was going on so it must have been at worst a moral transgression rather than an absolute sin.

That said, the infamous money changers in the temple (well, in the Court of the Gentiles really) were scalpers rather than interest chargers, they were charging an excessive rate of exchange against Roman (...render unto Caesar) money.

So perhaps its just banking and Forex thats wicked ;)

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It might be in Islam (although I understand this is debatable), but it isn't in Judaism or Christianity.

The Old Testament put its in the context of using it as a way of enslaving the poor, they are talking about loansharking and bonded labour but I suppose you could choose to generalise on from that although its clear from the New Testament that it was going on so it must have been at worst a moral transgression rather than an absolute sin.

That said, the infamous money changers in the temple (well, in the Court of the Gentiles really) were scalpers rather than interest chargers, they were charging an excessive rate of exchange against Roman (...render unto Caesar) money.

So perhaps its just banking and Forex thats wicked ;)

and a single global currency is the saviour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats because, like with most things, theyre stuck in the dark ages, when the rich probably did own fortunes and have large hoards, and the peasants where charged

Now the 'rich' owe zillions and want the taxpayer (ie the poor masses) to subsidise their ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of you are being very cynical about this.

Inner-city churches in particular have been speaking out for years against loansharks and the slightly more refined ones that wear suits and advertise on the telly. They aren't being inconsistent here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think some of you are being very cynical about this.

Inner-city churches in particular have been speaking out for years against loansharks and the slightly more refined ones that wear suits and advertise on the telly. They aren't being inconsistent here.

They get their money lying to the pscyologially vulnerable about life after death.

Conmen the lot of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They get their money lying to the pscyologially vulnerable about life after death.

Conmen the lot of them.

Both the opium of the masses and a comfort in a comfortless world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
Jesus saves; Moses invests..

Jesus saves, but John The Baptist puts it away on the rebound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought that the concept of islamic finance would appeal to many on this board especially the insistance on sound money, shared risk, and taxes on unused funds/property.

Even though part of me is in the let them pay what they like, overall its always the poorest who end up paying these mega high rates we allow the highest paid most educated and greedy people market such products to the most uneducated and desperate people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interestingly, there was a 'Tonight' program on a few nights ago, mentioned on these boards too I think, and the so-called-expert witness against the bad practices of debt chasing agencies was the CEO of a debt counselling organisation - I googled it and found it was explicitly part of a christian church organisation, all a bit sanctimonious and smug...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...forget the history of religion...they have a valid point ....interest rates of 20% + and thereabouts on credit cards and loans sould be a criminal offence when base is 0.5%....more so when they hard sell the highest interest rate products to the poorest and least informed in society .....if this was a decent country these lenders would be in jail doing hard labour..and the people who really 'get my goat' are the money lenders on the till at Marks and Spencers when you pay for your shopping with a 'Switch' card they fiegn innocence to ask if you have a M&S card.....I always give them a look of contempt .....no amount of staff training in this lurid trade encourages me to that store on a regular basis...... <_<

Edited by South Lorne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of boll*cks. Typical Guardian level of journalistic inaccuracy. Whenever you get a socialist newspaper siding with the god-squadders you know there's some real rubbish about to be written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an atheist I just go by the 'neither a borrower nor a lender be' maxim. I know I had to have a mortgage to get a home - now paid off, but that's the only loan I've ever had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm I thought Usury usually said ALL interest was bad, not just high rates?

Next news: Church protests about coveting "too many" of the neighbour's wives at once

Haha, absolutely right. I used to work for a bank which dealt partly in Islamic lending. I can't speak for the Jewish religion but the whole idea of Islamic lending was a hypocritical farce as far as I could see. In loan documents the word 'lender' couldn't appear but was replaced by 'investor'. 'Interest' became 'commision' - what an utter load of horses*1t !!! Just by calling it something else doesn't make it any different!

Anyway, no one forces people to borrow money - if they do it and get in trouble its their own problem. Maybe the church leaders/rabbis etc could make their next stop the BTL investors club where there was no doubt a shed load of loud bragging a few years ago about what their portfolios were worth - would be such a shame if they had to pay a high interest rate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   292 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.