Usury Centralises Wealth

21 Jun

Cross-posted from Applied Philosophy, by author Anonemiss (my bold emphasis added):

I discovered on the exceedingly excellent website of Project Gutenberg a book, that although written 110 years ago, speaks to the heart of our modern economy problems. The book is called Usury: A Scriptural, Ethical and Economic View by Calvin Elliott. I was surprised by how much my own writings about usury follows his arguments. Of course no book about usury could bypass Francis Bacon’s attempt at legitimizing it:

The dictum of Bacon that “Usury gathers the wealth of the realm into few hands” is readily proven and fully verified in the experience of these times. The tendency to centralization under a system of usury or interest-taking is so strong, and the modern result so apparent that the statement only is necessary.

Usury not only enslaves the borrower and oppresses the poor who are innocent of all debt, but it also affects the rich by gathering the wealth of the wealthy into fewer and fewer hands. There is a centralizing draft that threatens and then finally absorbs the smaller fortunes into one colossal financial power. It is as futile to resist this as to resist fate. Wealth cannot be so fortified and guarded as to successfully resist the attack of superior wealth when the practice of usury is permitted. The smaller and weaker fortune, using the same weapon as the larger and stronger, must inevitably be defeated and overcome, and ultimately absorbed.

Rates of interest do not affect the ultimate result. Under a high rate the gathering is rapid, under a low rate the accretions are slower, but the gathering into few hands is none the less sure. Rates of interest only place the convergent center at a nearer or more remote period.


I advise all readers to study this book (do not be put off by the religious chapters at the start and continue to the purely economic arguments in the later chapter).

See Also:

14 Responses to “Usury Centralises Wealth”

  1. mick June 21, 2013 at 11:47 am #

    Who was it in the distant past who wrote that “money begets money”….the power of compounding.

    I believe that your story is more relevant to the corruption of government which ensures that the rich and very wealthy get deals which are not available to the rest of the population.

    Debt is a method of making wealth IF YOU MAKE THE RIGHT INVESTMENT. Even small investors can be successful although governments of all persuasion are lining up to steal what has taken so long to accumulate at such personal cost. This is where prudent investors need to be careful lest they are the last one(s) standing in this game of musical chairs. Such is life.

  2. Kevin Moore June 21, 2013 at 12:11 pm #

    You can go straight to the book here –

    The Project Gutenberg eBook of Usury by Calvin Elliott

  3. Kevin Moore June 21, 2013 at 3:19 pm #

    If there “simply isn’t enough money on the planet” to fund the United States obligtions, how will Banks fund the rest of the worlds economies?

    As the Banks wealth is made dishonestly while sitting on their fat behinds, trying to look honourable, at the same time plundering the production of the working borrower with usury, then why can’t they just do the decent thing and shift the decimal point back a few noughts? They won’t lose a cent becuse they had nothing in the first place.

    Why don’t we show some sanity and get back to Christian basics?

    “……Financial disaster looms for America: $106 trillion in unfunded obligations mounting up over 30 years
    More money than the world has
    The good news is at least some lawmakers are concerned about the enormous amount of money in benefits – $106 trillion within the next three decades – that past generations of congresses have promised Americans, in order to secure their votes and remain in power.

    At least some lawmakers are aware that there simply isn’t enough money on the planet to pay those benefits, and are trying – though largely in vain, at the moment – to head off the approaching economic tsunami. But will it be too few – and too late? Is Washington’s culture of buying votes with the federal treasury too ingrained to alter course?

    Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., is one of the few. He and a group of Senate Republicans recently bypassed the Congressional Budget Office, which traditionally only projects budgets and spending out for a decade, and did their own 30-year project. What they came up with was economic Armageddon: $106,954,000,000,000 in the red, and that was the medium estimate (the range was a low of $72 trillion and a high of $120 trillion, as reported by National Review magazine).

    “In all of these budget negotiations, we’re really trapped by this ten-year budget window, which, truthfully, minimizes the problem,” Johnson says.

    Indeed. By limiting its scope to a single decade, the CBO creates an environment where budget policy is gamed by both the White House and Congress; “projected savings” and other accounting tricks allow them to mask problems and hide the real danger. The Senate GOP’s 30-budget projection was designed to lay bare the problem – and its scope – so that Americans have a very clear idea of just what is coming (it will be Greece but on a dramatically higher order of magnitude).

    “I used to joke that the estimate was based on whatever my mood was in the shower that morning,” former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin told the magazine. In other words, by fudging assumptions, he could basically come up with whatever figures he wanted”.

    • mick June 21, 2013 at 5:07 pm #

      Good to see you have a handle on what is going on Kevin. You are correct that the US is in deep deep trouble. It has borrowed money from the Chinese which it will never be able to repay and I suggest that printing money is their way of devaluing the repayments so that the game can continue for a while yet. A number of those who have knowledge in the area are saying that we may well be heading back to a gold standard and that the yuan will become the world reserve currency. You should note that China does not allow even 1 ounce of its own gold to be exported and it is buying the stuff like it is going out of style. Central banks in many parts of the world are doing likewise and the “clever country”, just like the proverbial unicorn, is living like their is no tomorrow with no interest in how the cards are beginning to fall.

      I agree with you. I cannot see that America’s $16 trillion debt will ever be repaid. I don’t believe that there is any intention of repaying it. It says a lot about our good buddies doesn’t it.

  4. Tel June 21, 2013 at 9:35 pm #

    There are some problems with Elliott’s story here. Yes debt can be dangerous, and … drugs can be dangerous, and … climbing up a ladder can be dangerous, and … electric light bulbs can be dangerous. So is the correct answer for the Nanny State to protect us all and outlaw all dangerous things? Hell, no! That approach has failed badly, not only has personal responsibility been removed, but the state is happy to collect a slice of the usury, just like they collect the tobacco tax, the alcohol tax, and all the other things that are supposed to be bad for us.

    I agree with the bit about “The only difficulty in this accretion is to secure debtors that will not die.” This is important because too many people conflate government debt with private debt. Private debt is a bit of a problem for the rest of us, but mostly a problem for the private individual concerned. Government debt is a problem for everyone. Totally different types of problem. This is true for anything government does though… if I go and invade Iraq all on my own, that’s going to be my personal problem. If my government goes and invades Iraq in my name, that’s going to be a problem for all of us. Debt is not special in this regard, all collective decision making runs into this issue.

    He also confuses the idea of private usury between consenting parties and a central bank with government-granted powers. There have always been plenty of small private banks in the United states. The following is misleading:

    The first bank was incorporated in 1791. Its establishment was strongly resisted, but being urged by the Secretary of the Treasury, a charter was granted for twenty years. When that charter expired by limitation in 1811, there was a struggle by the usurers to secure its renewal, but they were defeated. They did not, however, abandon their effort. In 1816 they secured the charter of the second bank of the United States

    This is talking about central banking which is a bank backed up by the power of government. That’s an entirely different thing to private individuals lending each other money at interest. Again, collective responsibility, vs personal responsibility. The thing is, if a government owes money to its own central bank, then this government at all times has an option to default if it should so choose. The fact that governments invariable choose to voluntarily pay the interest and get themselves further into debt when it suits them tells you that central banks are not a problem for governments at all, they are very convenient things.

    Think about each individual person working for government, their pay is here and now, their rewards are focussed, the possible future penalty is diffuse. Of course they will decide that borrowing money to pay themselves is a damn good idea.

    • Kevin Moore June 22, 2013 at 8:44 am #

      “The thing is, if a government owes money to its own central bank, then this government at all times has an option to default if it should so choose”.

      Who REALLY owns the Reserve Bank of Australia?
      Prior to 1959 the Commonwealth issued and printed its own money and had control of the printing of money. However after the 1959 Reserve Bank Act, the Reserve Bank was established as a stand alone independent foreign ADI, which took over the printing of money and lent the money it printed to the Commonwealth at interest. So instead of the Commonwealth printing its own money, we have a foreign body corporate printing our money and lending it to the Commonwealth which the Commonwealth needs to pay back!

      “RESERVE BANK ACT 1959 – SECT 77 Guarantee by Commonwealth
      The Commonwealth is responsible for the payment of all moneys due by the Bank”
      (The commonwealth of Australia is paying money is borrows back to the stand alone bank)

      “RESERVE BANK ACT 1959 – SECT 27 Bank to be banker for Commonwealth
      The Bank shall, in so far as the Commonwealth requires it to do so, act as banker and financial agent of the Commonwealth”
      (The reserve bank is the Commonwealths banker and lender and the Commonwealth must pay the money back to the Bank!)


      The below act shows how foreign coroporations have power of attorney over the Reserve Bank of Australia:

      RESERVE BANK ACT 1959 – SECT 76 Attorney of Bank
      The Bank may, by instrument under its seal, appoint a person (whether in Australia or in a place beyond Australia) to be its attorney and a person so appointed may, subject to the instrument, do any act or execute any power or function which he or she is authorized by the instrument to do or execute.

      Foreign Agents in control of the Reserve Bank of Australia:

      RESERVE BANK ACT 1959 – SECT 75 Agents etc.
      In the exercise of its powers and the performance of its functions, the Bank may:
      (a) Establish branches and agencies at such places, whether within or beyond Australia, as the Bank thinks fit;
      (b) Arrange with a person to act as agent of the Bank in any place, whether within or beyond Australia; and
      (c) Act as the agent of an ADI carrying on business within or beyond Australia.

      The Reserve Bank is a foreign ADI. A “foreign ADI” means a body corporate that:
      (a) is a foreign corporation within the meaning of paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution; and
      (b) is authorised to carry on banking business in a foreign country; and
      (c) has been granted an authority under section 9 to carry on banking business in Australia.

      Watch this talk… very interesting.

      • mick June 23, 2013 at 10:49 am #

        Some interesting information Kevin but my experience of legal documents in the past is that they intentionally leave holes you could drive a truck through so that a option is available should circumstances require the user (the government in this case) to find a way out. If the Reserve Bank became a rogue organisation then I am sure the government of the day would not permit it act contrary to the interests of the nation. I have to smile when I write that as governments generally act contrary to the good of the nation and Australians are powerless to stop them other than via the ballot box….which most average Australians are either too dumb or too apathetic to be able to do. Ho hum.

        I’d like to see what happened if the Board of the Reserve Bank tried to put in a governor who was a stoolie for say Chinese business interests. It would not be on and rightly so. Having said that I look at our deadbeat government which permits the sale of freehold agricultural land to Chinese state owned companies. The only word which keeps coming up is the word TREASON but get one of our citizens to give a damn. Maybe when its all gone.

  5. Kevin Moore June 22, 2013 at 2:15 am #

    This article I thought was worth posting here.

    by Kelvyn Alp, Direct Democracy Party, 15 March 2007

    Let’s face FACTS!
    The finishing remarks –
    “………Make no mistake about it, “money” has become the new international God, the banks its disciples and they care nothing about the needs of humanity. This corruption is reinforced up by our Politicians, Judges, Lawyers and Police as they seek to remove our rights, liberties and freedoms and replace them with what they deem to be licensed “privileges” that can just as easily be taken if we dare to challenge their authority.
    Money was only ever meant to be the medium of exchange for goods and services at an agreed value, it was never meant to be the product itself, nor the tool by which we were all to be thrown into despair. Until we master and control the money, we will forever be enslaved to it and therefore those that control it.
    Like it or not, we do not have a democracy in New Zealand, we have a CON-ocracy and it matters not who gets into Parliament from the mainstream parties, because the same issues arise time and time again, yet are never remedied. Why? Because they do not have the ability, the guts, or the commonsense to challenge the status-quo; if they did we would all be enjoying a quality of life where hard work, production, innovation and creativity are all rewarded and not penalised. I charge this and past governments with treason against the people of New Zealand for willingly allowing the enslavement of so many to the greed and vested interests of the select few.
    I will leave you with a quote that bears thinking about as you digest what I have just revealed to you and that is: «The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is The People vs. the Banks.» (Lord Acton, Historian, 1834-1902) — NOW is that time!

    • Tel June 22, 2013 at 7:53 am #

      Personally I think Say’s Law is rock solid.

      Money is not an end in itself, has never been an end in itself nor will it be. Banks understand this, even though from the outside it may seem otherwise, every banker is intending one day to spend their money. For them, money is a tool in trade, a means to an end, just like for everyone else.

      Financial repression comes into play in a number of ways. Most obviously, people should be able to choose for themselves what they want to use as money. Want to print your own, and you can find someone to accept that? Fine by me. How about Bitcoin? Also fine by me.

      Less obvious is that governments force bankers to operate as a tightly regulated cartel. A lot of people are happy to have the government regulating bankers (because you know government can be trusted) so they feel safer that way. The result is that any alternative to the cartel is forced out.

      Finally, their other trick is capital gains tax. Suppose you just decide with a group in your neighbourhood to start using gold coins as currency. Well, as government inflates their paper money and those gold coins stay at the same value, suddenly you owe tax on the gold in your hand. Yes I did say what you thought I said: by holding a gold coin that remains the same value over a long time, you create a tax liability to penalize you for adding value to your capital. These are the roots of the problem.

      • mick June 23, 2013 at 10:38 am #

        The relationship between banks and the government is certainly a cartel and is illegal. But behaving illegally does not phase the government. As I was told by a justice Tim Moore at a NSW Planning Reform meeting last year when I asked if the Planning Legislation was going to contain requirements for local councils to be constrained to follow their own planning instruments : “council may do as it pleases”. This came as a surprise to me because I had always been of the opinion that local councils had rules just like citizens and these were contained in their planning instruments. It turns out that they don’t and that they “can do as they please”. The point of the text is that governments generally are not beholding to any code of conduct and if they want to execute you they will do that too with no accountability.

        As for capital gains tax this is the rort of rorts. Capital gains tax used to be adjusted for inflation. Now it is not. So effectively the tax is levied on a gain which has not occurred. To compensate it is levied on only half of the gain but if one holds an asset for long enough then the government collects tax on a lot more than the true gain. You know the old saying about the only 2 certainties in life though….death and taxes.

      • Kevin Moore June 23, 2013 at 12:26 pm #

        This article has some relevance to your comments.

        • mick June 24, 2013 at 9:40 am #

          Nice article Kevin.

          There would not be too many people who could appreciate the perspective of the article you attached. Big Brother and the Orwellian state are here but society is apathetic and is the proverbial lobster in the pot, feeling a bit of warmth as the heat rises but not realising that they are slowly being cooked and stripped of more and more freedoms and having their wealth systematically taken from them. I am awaiting the reintroduction of death duties as the next ‘measure’.

          If you believe the article of fiat money devaluing (I do) then why not convert your assets to gold or silver? I have personally begun this process but cannot find the courage to go in boots and all and convert the lot. But what other way does one cut out the banks? And then expect the government thugs to come knocking at the door if pseudo currency does take off. You would be aware that legislation already exists in much of the first world which permits governments to confiscate gold don’t you? It does. Been in the Australian framework for many decades although not enacted. If and when fiat money becomes toilet paper it will be.

  6. Tel June 22, 2013 at 7:37 am #

    This is on a similar topic, from a different angle.

    The only thing missing here is that Ketz is a bit confused as to why he fought the good fight and lost. Why was it so easy for the banks to sucker the government? Because government owes a lot of favours to banks, and banks are really darn useful when it comes to controlling the population, that’s why.

  7. Kevin Moore June 24, 2013 at 2:40 pm #

    It is women in the main it seems who have the guts to stick it to the wealthy and powerful.
    World Bank: Money Laundering Criminals | Interview with Whistleblower Karen Hudes

    Clare Daly TD Ind. calls Obama a war criminal and hypocrite in Irish Parliament.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: